Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPFAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Maidstone Corporation Bill (by Order),

Nottingham Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Potteries and North Staffordshire Tramways and Light Railways Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY OFFICERS (CHARGER ALLOWANCE).

Colonel Sir C. YATE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that it is impossible for officers in the Army in India to keep a horse on the charger allowance now granted to them; and what steps are being taken to put the recommendation of the Esher Committee Report on the subject into force?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Government of India's Orders in regard to the expense of maintaining chargers, which represent, I think, a liberal concession in the direction indicated by the Esher Committee.

POLITICAL PRISONERS (RELEASE).

Sir C. YATE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the speech of Sir William Marris, the newly appointed Governor, before the United Provinces Legislative Council on the 29th January last, in which he informed the Council of his decision to release the political prisoners convicted last year, and in which he is reported to have stated that he thought it perfectly possible that some of those who were let out of gaol might attempt to revive a campaign of dangerous encitement; that amongst these prisoners who were released were Jawaharlal Nehru, son of Pandit Motilal Nehru, and also Mr. Gandhi's son, Devadas Gandhi; that most of the released prisoners are reported to have stated that they would go back to their old policy of agitation; and whether he can now state what reasons have been adduced by Sir William Marris for letting loose all these agitators to add to the unrest in the country?

Earl WINTERTON: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the
Governor's actual remarks which answer the last part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Sir Harcourt Butler had previously released 166 prisoners convicted of political offences, and Sir William Marris released 107 more (including the sons of Mr. Gandhi and Pandit Motilal Nehru), none of whom had been found guilty of incitement to violence, and 73 of whom had been convicted of offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act which had, in the meantime, been withdrawn from operation in the Provinces. I do not know the foundation for the assertion that most of the released prisoners declared their intention to renew agitation, but the Governor's speech warned them quite clearly what would happen if they did.

Captain O'GRADY: May I ask whether, in view of the reactionary questions put, the Noble Lord will communicate with Sir William Marris?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought not to use adjectives in his supplementary question.

Sir C. YATE: Has the Noble Lord read the report of the meeting of the agitators when they were let out, and will he tell me when he will be in a position to inform us what is the reason given by Sir William Marris for his action?

Earl WINTERTON: I have just informed the hon. and gallant Member that I am sending him a copy of this speech this afternoon. The only reason I do not read it out is because it is too long for an oral answer.

Sir C. YATE: The reason I asked was the reason adduced by Sir William Marris to the Government of India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any means of preventing these most unfortunate questions being put on the Order Paper?

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: Is there any limitation of the powers of the Governor to release political prisoners?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate), I think he will find there is contained in Sir William Marris's speech all the reasons he had put
forward for the release of these prisoners. I will, however, ask my Noble Friend the Secretary of State if a telegram can be sent for the information asked for, although I think it will be found in the speech. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson), it is impossible, within the limits of an answer to a question, to describe what the powers are, but, as I have said before, discretion is vested in the local government, not merely in the local Governor.
Following is the telegraphic report of speech by, Sir W. Morris: 
I am, if possible, for policy of peace and quiet. I wish to say no word about distraction and excitements of past except this that I am heartily glad they are to great extent over. I hope Province has before it period of recuperation and quiet growth. In that hope my Government have decided to meet wishes of this Council as expressed in their recent Resolution, and to release political prisoners who Were convicted last year in time of excitement, with exception of one man, whose utterances amounted to an attempt to instigate murder. I do not disguise from myself one moment possibility that this decision may be misunderstood in some quarters, nor risks which it entails. I think it perfectly possible that some of those who are let out of gaol may attempt to revive campaign of dangerous excitement. Well, we have had our experience and our warning, and we ought to know what to do if such attempts are made again. But I desire to say nothing minatory. I rely not so much on vigilance of Government or on powers of law as en good sense of people whose representatives you are. I am told by many gentlemen with whom I have talked this matter, that ordinary villager is thoroughly tired of such excitement and is no longer likely to listen to those who tell him that Government is tyrannical and offensive body, and that with its disappearance, and that of European officers, there will ensue millennium, when people will pay no taxes and Lind will flow with milk and honey. I hope that advice I have received is sound. At all events, we are going to make experiment, and I trust results will be as happy as our intentions are sincere.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Mr. HANCOCK: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what the percentage of British troops in the Indian Army has been for each of the last 10 years?

Earl WINTERTON: I assume that what the hon. Member desires to know is the proportion of British to Indian troops in India during the last 10 years. The
answer is as follows: During 1913 and 1914, 1 British to 2.5 Indian. During the years 1915–18 it is impossible to say, owing to continual troop movements overseas. From 1919 to date the proportion has been, approximately, 1: 2.65.

MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

Mr. HANCOCK: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the net military expenditure of India for each of the last ten years?

Earl WINTERTON: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, if the hon. Member sees no objection, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
Taking the rupee, for purposes of comparison, at 1s. 4d. throughout the period covered by the question, the figures, including Marine expenditure, are as follows:

£


1913–14
19,896,113


1914–15
20,434,915


1915–16
22,261,353


1916–17
24,990,811


1917–18
29,043,141


1918–19
44,480,238


1919–20
57,985,087


1920–21
58,254,241


1921–22 (Revised Estimate.)
46,231,300


1922–23 (Budget Estimate.)
45,168,400

PROVINCIAL ACCOUNTS (DEFICITS).

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 5.
asked the Under - Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the provincial accounts of the Punjab, of Bengal, and of Madras show heavy and increasing deficits; whether retrenchments in expenditure have been effected, and, if so, to what extent in each case; whether these provinces have imposed additional taxation and, if so, with what result; and whether, in view of the serious condition of provincial finances in certain provinces, he will have the arrangements recommended by the Meston Committee re-examined by another Committee, in the light of experience gained, in the hope that some scheme may be evolved which will save the provinces from financial bankruptcy?

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the last part of the question, the whole subject of provincial contributions was debated in the Indian Legislative Assembly on 14th September last, when a motion in favour of a fresh Committee to re-examine the question was rejected by a substantial majority. It has been made clear in despatches recently published that this view is shared by the Government of India and by my Noble Friend the Secretary of State. As regards the first three parts of the question, the answers are, in general, in the affirmative, except that the deficits are decreasing rather than increasing, and Bengal was able, owing to temporary remission of the contribution to the Central Government, to budget for a small surplus in the current year. I am not in a position to supply up-to-date figures. I will, however, endeavour to obtain these from India, if the hon. Member wishes.

INDIAN LABOUR (BRITISH HOMES).

Mr. GILBERT: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his Department pay any gratuities to homes in this country for Asiatic seamen, ayahs, and any other class of Indian labour; if so, how many homes do they so assist and what is the annual amount granted to each; and will he give the names of the homes and in what towns they are situated?

Earl WINTERTON: The following annual grants are made from Indian revenues to institutions of the kind indicated:



£


Strangers' Home for Asiatics, London
200


Ayahs' Home, Hackney
10


Seamen's Hospital, Greenwich
105


The first of these is paid by the High Commissioner's Office, the other two by the India Office.

Mr. GILBERT: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his Department has yet taken any further action as regards the housing of Lascars in British home ports is it intended to call a conference of British ship-owners who employ this kind of labour in order to consider this subject; and can he make any statement on the subject?

Earl WINTERTON: As representing the Secretary of State, I presided over a conference of representatives of the ship-owners concerned, who met last week at the India Office, where general assent was given to the proposition that Lascars in the United Kingdom should only be housed at places approved by the India Office. Detailed arrangements for giving effect to this decision are being made.

Mr. SHINWELL: When this question of the housing of Lascars was under consideration, was consideration also given to the improved housing of British seamen?

Earl WINTERTON: That has nothing whatever to do with the case.

MAIL SUBSIDIES.

Mr. GILBERT: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India make any payments to British mail steamers which carry Indian mails; if so, what amount is paid annually and to which steamship companies: and for what term of years the agreement is in force?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply to this question. I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the weekly mail despatched from India to Europe generally. A contribution to the contract payment made by the British Post Office to the Peninsular and Oriental Company for this service is receivable from the Government of India. I am unable to state the annual amount, as the matter is at present under discussion with the Indian Government. The contract is now terminable by two years' notice given on the 31st January.

ASSEMBLY AND LEGISLATURES (PERSONS DEBARRED).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Indians convicted under Section 126 of the Indian Penal Code are debarred from standing for the Indian Assembly and Legislatures; whether this restriction upon the choice of electors is also being considered for revision before the elections; and, in particular, will he make inquiries from India as to whether C. R. Dass, Motilal Nehru, Lajpat Rai, Dr. Salijapal, Dr. Munshi, of Nagpur,
and Jewhavilal Nehru arc debarred, and are to remain debarred, from standing for the councils next December?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that any of the gentlemen named were guilty of the offence with which the hon. and gallant Member seems to charge them, that of depredation on the territorries of a friendly Power. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is no doubt aware of the nature and scope of the restrictions on candidature arising from criminal convictions, which are imposed with the approval of this House. It is not proposed to abrogate this rule, and I see no ground for inquiry whether the persons named in the question are or are not debarred from candidature by its provisions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that mean that the Noble Lord will not make inquiries as to whether they are debarred or not?

Earl WINTERTON: I informed my hon. and gallant Friend, in answer to a similar question last year, that I was not prepared to recommend to my Noble Friend that the removal of this bar should be effected.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is the Noble Lord aware that conviction under certain paragraphs does not debar people from standing, whereas conviction under certain other Acts does debar them from standing, and are we to understand that the India Office will not make inquiry as to whether these very distinguished politicians are or are not debarred from taking part in the elections next December?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: Before the Noble Lord answers that question, may I ask him if he is not aware that this matter was very fully considered by the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and was decided on the lines laid clown in Parliament?

Earl WINTERTON: I am fully aware of what my right hon. Friend says. That is one of the reasons why I have refused to take action. As regards the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he wishes inquiry to be made of the Government of India by telegraph I have no doubt my Noble Friend will carry out the request. It seems to me it is a matter which the
solicitors of these gentlemen in question can easily ascertain by looking up the Act.

Captain O'GRADY: Has there ever been a criminal conviction against Lajpat Rai, and, having regard to the fact that he has been convicted of political offences, is he to be debarred from standing for the Council next December?

Earl WINTERTON: If he has not been condemned under Statute which does debar him, then he will be able to stand. If he has been, then he will not be able to stand.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Noble Lord find out?

RAILWAY MATERIAL (ORDERS).

Sir JOHN HEWETT: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the total amount in sterling for which orders have, been placed for the supply of rails, rolling stock, and other materials for the railways in India; and what portion of the total represents orders given for the supply of articles manufactured in Great Britain?

Earl WINTERTON: In the case of the State-worked railways, the total amount for which orders for materials have been placed since the 1st April, 1922, is £1,735,000, of which £1,602,000 is in respect of materials manufactured in Great Britain. I am obtaining similar information with regard to the company-worked railways.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it not part of the policy of the Government to limit discretion in regard to these orders to British good only?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. On the contrary, the position is that the High Commissioner has received instructions from the Government of India, not the Secretary of State, that the purchases should take place in the best market. These figures show that as a result of carrying out this order that in effect the vast bulk has been purchased in this country.

ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any action has been taken
by the United States of America, following the Resolution of the House of Representatives on 13th December, 1922, in favour of a fresh Naval Conference to limit the construction of all surface and submarine ships and all naval and military aircraft?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am not aware that the House of Representatives passed the Resolution adopted by the Naval Appropriations Committee. No communication based upon it has been received from the United States Government.

SUDAN GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL SECRETARY).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Colonel Sir Edgar Bernard resigned his appointment last year as financial secretary of the Sudan Government after many years' public service, will he state the reasons for his resignation; and upon whose representations his successor, Colonel Schuster, was appointed?

Mr. McNEILL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In accepting with regret the resignation of Sir Edgar Bernard, whose long and distinguished services they greatly appreciated, the Sudan Government were impressed with the need of obtaining the advice of an expert who had recent experience of both Government and private finance in this country. The appointment of the present financial secretary was made after consultation with the Treasury and the Foreign Office.

SMYRNA-AIDIN RAILWAY.

Mr. DOYLE: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Smyrna-Aid-in Railway Company has an admitted claim of £49,000 against the, Greek Government for services which the company, at the instance of the British Government, was compelled to render to the Greeks in Asia Minor; and if any steps are being taken to secure payment of this claim, the amount having been agreed to by the Greek authorities?

Mr. McNEILL: The services given by the Smyrna-Aid-in Railway Company to the Greek military authorities during the Greek occupation of Smyrna were not rendered at the instance of His Majesty's Government. The company were unavoidably forced by circumstances to render certain services to the Greek military authorities in order to avoid requisition of the railway. The claim of the company against the Greek Government for these services was understood to amount to £45,000 in September last, when His Majesty's Minister at Athens was instructed to press the Greek Government to settle it. Owing to the political and financial crisis in Greece, the representations made by His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires have not so far proved successful. The claims are now understood to amount to £49,000 and His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires is instructed to renew his representations.

Mr. DOYLE: 27 and 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that the Smyrna-Aid-in Railway is the oldest railway in Turkey and the largest British industrial enterprise in Asia Minor; that it was built with capital raised exclusively in London: that the whole of the directorate and general manager are, and always have been, British; that upwards of £5,000,000 of British capital is invested in it; that many of the investors are persons of limited means; that it has always paid British Income Tax in full; in view of the fact that much damage and destruction has been wrought by the Ottoman Government, what means are proposed to compensate the owners of the company;
(2) what is the position of the Smyrna-Aid-in Railway Company in regard to claims for compensation for damages sustained whilst in the occupation of enemy forces; whether he is aware that the Ottoman Government seized, confiscated, and enjoyed the revenue of the line during the period of the late War; what tribunal is now dealing with these claims; whether such claims were considered at the Lausanne Conference if not, for what reason; if so, what decision, if any, was arrived at, and the reasons for same; whether he is aware that these claims were secured by Article 287 of the Treaty of Sevres; and what method of recovery is proposed in substitution thereof?

Mr. McNEILL: I am aware generally of the facts referred to in these questions. The Company's claims against the Turkish Government were considered with those of other Turkish Companies controlled by Allied interests at the Lausanne Conference, and in the draft Treaty presented to the Turkish Delegation, provision has been made for their settlement. The Blue Book on the proceedings of the Conference which is about to be laid will give the details of those provisions.

Mr. DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the other parts of Question 28?

Mr. McNEILL: I think my hon. Friend will see that my answer covers that point. If he will wait and see the Blue Book, he will have the full provisions, which he can consult for himself, set out.

AUSTRIA (INTERNATIONAL LOAN).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as part of the conditions which the Austrian Government is being required to accept in order to obtain an international loan of £26,000,000 under the scheme of the League of Nations, the legal eight-hour day, old age pensions, and sickness insurance are to be abolished in Austria?

Mr. McNEILL: The conditions accepted by the Austrian Government in connection with the League of Nations scheme are contained in the Protocols signed at Geneva, which were communicated to Parliament in Command Paper No. 1765 Austria No. 1 (1922).

Mr. SNOWDEN: Do the conditions laid down include one that the Austrian Government shall abolish the legal eight-hour day?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper I think he will see that those conditions are not made.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it not the fact that the scheme was voluntarily adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Austrian Parliament.?

Mr. McNEILL: I believe that is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

30. Captain BENN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Konigswinter has been occupied by coloured troops?

Mr. McNEILL: Konigswinter has been occupied by Moroccan troops which were part of the Bonn garrison.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it correct to describe Moroccan troops as "coloured"?

Captain BENN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the demand by the French section of the Railway Sub-Commission at Cologne for more accommodation; whether the demand has been granted; and what action has been taken on it by the German officials?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no official information on this point.

Captain BENN: How often do the Foreign Office communicate with the Commission? Do they not hear of things until two or three days or a week after?

Mr. McNEILL: I think we usually hear within a few hours.

Captain BENN: May I take it that there is no truth whatever in the report which has apeared in "The Times" and elsewhere as to the difficulty in finding accomodation at Cologne for this Commission?

Mr. McNEILL: I could not say.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 65.
asked the Prime Minister the present position of the British protest against the French taking the 12 milliard marks which were on their way to the Cologne area; has the money been returned; and is it clear that such supplies of currency will be safe in future on the road between Germany and Cologne?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret to be unable at present to add anything to the reply which the Prime Minister gave on this subject to the hon. and gallant Member for Lough-borough on 1st March, except that no part of the money was intended for the British Army of Occupation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it there is no truth in the statement in the
Press that the French have refused to hand over any portion of this money?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not know that any request has been made to that effect.

Captain BENN: Has every expression of opinion been given by the British authorities?

Mr. McNEILL: Not so far as I am aware, nor do I see any reason that there should be.

Captain BERKELEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information from our Embassy in Berlin or from any other source to show that the German Government is contemplating the rupture of diplomatic relations with France?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer is in the negative.

Captain BERKELEY: If it should prove to be so—

SPEAKER: Hypothetical questions are not allowed.

RHINELAND HIGH COMMISSION

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Inter-Allied Rhine-land High Commission is exercising jurisdiction in the territory newly occupied by the French military authorities between the Mainz and Coblenz bridgeheads, and between the Coblenz and Cologne bridge heads, on the right bank of the Rhine; and, if so, under what provision of the Treaty of Versailles or of the Rhineland Agreement it is exercising such jurisdiction?

Mr. McNEILL: On the instructions of the French and Belgian Governments, French troops on 25th February occupied the strips of territory lying between the Mainz and Coblenz bridgeheads and the Coblenz and Cologne bridgeheads. The High Commission subsequently declared this territory to be under their own authority, but His Majesty's High Commissioner took no part in and disclaimed all responsibility for that decision. His Majesty's Government are advised that under no provision of the Treaty of Versailles or of the Rhineland Agreement can the High Commission claim to exercise jurisdiction over the territory in
question. The attention of the French Government has been called to the matter.

Mr. BUXTON: In view of that answer, will His Majesty's representative on the Rhineland Commission be instructed to protest against this unlawful extension?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say whether he will or will not.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether the ordinances of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission, from which the British representative on the Commission has dissented, are operative in the British zone of the occupied territory of Germany?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the affirmative.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS AND REPARATIONS (CONFERENCES).

Major ATTLEE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the French Government were approached before the papers relating to the Conferences at London and Paris on inter-Allied debts and reparations (Cmd. 1812) were published; and whether, in giving their consent to the publication, they insisted upon any modifications or deletions in the papers before their publication?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part of the question, the notes on the speeches of the French delegates were revised before publication by the French Government, as were those of the Belgian and Italian delegates by their respective Governments. Such modifications as were made were purely verbal and in the interests of accuracy.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the notes and conversations appear in the published papers?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot answer that question without notice.

MILITARY TRIBUNALS (SENTENCES).

Captain BENN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government has agreed to sentences of imprisonment
passed by military tribunals in the occupied area of Germany being served in any cases in British prisons?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. LAMBERT: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether any acceptance has been received from Germany of his named sum for reparations, or whether the Germans have communicated with the Government on this subject since the Paris Conference in January last?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does not that infer that the Germans do not propose to pay any reparations unless they are compelled?

AMERICAN ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the United States of America have demanded a payment from the Allies of 241 million dollars for the cost of their Army of Occupation in Germany, and that this amount exceeds the total amount received by the Allies from Germany in respect of the cost of occupation of their armies, he will say what, under these circumstances, the Government propose to do?

Captain KING: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can at present add nothing to the answer which he gave to the hon. Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Mr. Collison) on the 26th February.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will this amount be taken out of future payments from Germany, or from those which we have already received?

Captain KING: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that in the answer to which I have referred him.

RHINELAND RAILWAYS.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government recognises the authority of the Franco-Belgian Commission set up by Ordinance No. 149 of the Rhineland High Commission to control the railways in the whole of the occupied territory of Germany including the British zone?

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 71.
asked the Prime Minister if he has information to the effect that the French and Belgian High Commissioners have set up a French and Belgian civil administration of the whole of the railways of the occupied Rhineland; and, if this is so, does this place the railways in the British area under French and Belgian control in common with the rest of the Rhineland?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of Question No. 71 is in the affirmative, but special provision has been made for the railways in the British zone, which will not come under the new administration.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does this mean that the British zone has been exempted by the courtesy and during the pleasure of our French Allies, or that it has been definitely excluded from the sphere of the Ordinance?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not recognise the distinction between the two courses. It has been excluded by arrangement with the French.

Captain BENN: Who controls the trains which run on the railways? Is it the Commission that controls the traffic?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question, I will give full information as to the arrangements made.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH SUBJECTS (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. ERSKINE: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the cases in Lord Emmott's Interim Report (1920) of the illegal imprisonment and maltreatment of British subjects in Bolshevist prisons, he can say when an explanation in regard thereto was demanded from the Russian Government; whether such explanation has been received by His Majesty's Government; if so, when; if not, what is the reason; and what steps are being taken to obtain compensation for those unfortunate people who, as a result of injuries sustained during their imprisonment, are unable to earn a living?

Mr. McNEILL: Cases such as those referred to by the hon. Member, when brought to the attention of His Majesty's
Government, have been taken up singly with the Soviet Government with the utmost vigour, and the individuals affected have been informed at each stage of the negotiations. His Majesty's Government have consistently upheld claims of British subjects in all negotiations which have taken place with the Soviet Government. Unfortunately, it has been impossible to obtain redress in any single instance.

BRITISH PRE-WAR INVESTMENTS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state, approximately, the amount owed by the Russian Government to British investors in pre-War bonds guaranteed by that Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): The answer contains a number of figures, and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the term Russian Government apply to the Soviet Government or the Czarist Government?

Viscount WOLMER: I think the hon. Gentleman had better ask the hon. Member who puts the question.

Following are the figures referred to:

The claims registered with the Russian Claims Department in respect of pre-War Bonds of, or guaranteed by, the Russian Government, are as follows:

State Loans
£14,592,000


Roubles
4,646,000


Guaranteed Railway Loans
£10,637,000


Roubles
818,000


Marks
9,168,000


Francs
5,491,000

These figures represent capital amounts, and are exclusive of interest in arrear.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PLEAN COLLIERY (EXPLOSION).

Mr. HARDIE: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines if the Government representative at the Plean Colliery inquiry ascertained the temperature at which coal dust was alleged, in part of the evidence, to have coked; and will he give the information to the House?

Viscount WOLMER: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, the colliery chemist stated in evidence that he had found by experiment that the temperature at which coal from East Plean Colliery begins to coke is 628° Fahr.

Mr. HARDIE: If the coal dust was coked at the temperature stated, why were not the pit props burnt out?

Viscount WOLMER: I think I shall have to have notice of that question.

Mr. HARDIE: 12.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether on the day before the Plean Colliery explosion one of His Majesty's mine inspectors inspected the Plean Colliery; and whether the inspector's Report given on that date will be laid upon the Table of this House?

Viscount WOLMER: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, an inspection at this colliery was made on 12th July. The inspector was called to give evidence in regard to it at the public inquiry which was held in October last, and a copy of this evidence will be sent to the hon. Member.

Mr. HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not he can procure the book that ought to have been signed by His Majesty's inspector, and will he bring that book to this House for inspection?

Viscount WOLMER: I will inquire whether it is available for the hon. Member to see.

METALLURGICAL COKE.

Mr. CYRIL LLOYD: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the productive capacity of metallurgical coke in this country in the years 1913, 1920 and 1922, and in the same years the amount consumed in blast furnaces in this country?

Viscount WOLMER: I have been asked to reply. I regret that I am unable to furnish particulars of the productive capacity of this country in metallurgical coke. The number of coke ovens in use and the quantity of metallurgical coke made in the years specified were as follow:

Ovens,
Tons of coke.


1913
21,006
12,798,996


1920
15,400
12,611,435


1922
10,500
9,400,000

The figures for 1922 are estimated.

The amount of coke consumed in blast furnaces in this country was about 11,750,000 tons in 1913, and 10,000,000 tons in 1920, and between 5,750,000 and 6,000,000 tons in 1922.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CONSULAR SERVICE.

Mr. MOREING: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the number of persons employed at the Foreign Office in administering the Consular Service prior to the transference of that Service to the Department of Overseas Trade; and what reduction in numbers has been effected as a result of the change?

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON - HICKS (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Consular Department of the Foreign Office, prior to its being placed under the direction of the Department of Overseas Trade, consisted of five officers under the Controller of Commercial and Consular Affairs. The latter appointment has now been abolished, but in view of the pressure of work, especially in connection with the re-organisation of the Consular Service, it has been necessary to increase the staff of the Consular Department itself from five to six officers. Two of these are consular officers who will in due course revert to posts overseas.

PASSPORT OFFICE.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the amount for salaries alone for the personnel of the Passports Office and branch Passport Office represented 60 per cent. of the total received in fees in 1922–23, thus leaving only 40 per cent. for buildings, maintenance, office supplies, profits, and all other charges, so that this Department cannot be considered a profitable enterprise, and in view of the fact that the activities of this Department add nothing to the amenities of the lives of British subjects, whether he will consider coming to arrangements with foreign countries and taking action to enable this Department to be abolished at the earliest possible moment, and if he will state what he considers this moment to be?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative. The figures quoted by the hon. Member, based upon the Estimates for 1922–23, are substantially correct, but the actual figures for the 11 months to the end of February show that the total expenditure for salaries will be lower and the receipts from fees considerably higher than was anticipated when the Estimates were framed. It was never intended that the Passport Office should be treated as a revenue producing Department, and it was agreed at the Paris Conference in 1920 that passport fees should not be considered as being of a fiscal character.

LITHUANIA.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an explanation and apology have been received from the Lithuanian Government since the arrest in that country of the British military attaché to Poland?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government have demanded a full and adequate apology, but this has not yet been received.

HAGUE CONFERENCE (RUSSIAN PROPOSAL).

Mr. MOREL: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he is aware that the last proposal of the Russian delegation at The Hague Conference, as recorded in the White Book on the subject (Cmd. 1724), was contingent on all the non-Russian delegations simultaneously referring it to their respective Governments; that the non-Russian delegation did not do so; that the fact that they did not was regarded by the Russian delegation as a definite refusal; and will he, in view of the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on 27th November, 1922, to the hon. Member for Central Hull, clear up the misunderstanding which apparently exists.

Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware of any misunderstanding. The suggestion that the Russian proposal should be referred to the non-Russian Governments was answered by the terms of the resolution
adopted by the non-Russian Commission which virtually accepted the Russian proposal.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade what expenditure has been incurred to date on the British Empire Exhibition; what the total cost will be; what is the total sum now guaranteed; and if any estimates of receipts and expenditure have been framed as from the opening date of the exhibition?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed by the Exhibition authorities that the total expenditure incurred to date on the British Empire Exhibition has been, in round figures, £750,000. The total gross expenditure to the close of the Exhibition is estimated at £2,435,000, and the total guarantees received to date are £1,203,000. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

COMMERCIAL DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS.

Mr. MOREING: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the difference between the duties performed by the commercial diplomatic officers and those previously carried out by the commercial attachés?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Commercial diplomatic officers, in addition to their other duties, supervise the commercial work of consular officers, which was not part of the functions of commercial attachés. Apart from this, the difference lies less in the nature of the work done than in the method of its organisation. Under the present system, commercial diplomatic officers address their reports on commercial subjects direct to the Department of Overseas Trade instead of to the Foreign Office, and receive their instructions direct from the Department, of Overseas Trade.

EMPIRE TRADE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHS: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of
the fact that the overseas settlement committee is confining its efforts to the emigration of men settling on the land, he can state what steps, if any, his Department is taking to promote the interests of British trade between this country and the Dominions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The sole purpose for which the Department of Overseas Trade exists is the encouragement of British export trade, and all its activities are directed to that end. In view of the paramount importance of stimulating trade within the Empire two additional trade commissioners are about to be stationed in India, and the trade commissioner service in Canada is to be strengthened by the opening of an office at Vancouver. Every effort is being made, consistent with the need for national economy, to enable the existing trade commissioners to carry on adequately their duties in the interests of British trade.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Where will these trade commissioners he located in India?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: One will be located in Bombay and one in Calcutta.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Is it the intention to send representatives to Australia, South Africa or New Zealand?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We have trade commissioners at the present time in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the present position of the Empire development proposals; and whether he is aware of the keen interest aroused in this country and throughout the British Empire in the suggestion outlined in his election programme and his references made thereto in this House last Session?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 56.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present position of the arrangements for the forthcoming British Empire Economic Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I gather that my hon. Friends are referring to the proposed Imperial Economic Conference. As I explained on the 1st March, in reply to
a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, communications are still proceeding with the Governments of the Dominions and India as regards this conference. I am not, therefore, in a position to make any definite statement on the matter.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT, 1922.

Mr. SHORT: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to what extent the provisions of the Trades Facilities Act, 1922, have been taken advantage of, and by whom and for what purposes?

Captain KING (Lord of the Treasury): Information as regards the guarantees which have been given under the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921–22, is contained in statements presented to this House quarterly. The statements already presented are House of Commons Papers Nos. 62 and 121 of 1922, No. 3 of the Second Session of 1922, and No. 4 of 1923. I understand that the Advisory Committee have before them at the present time a number of applications for a substantial amount, in respect of which negotiations have advanced to a considerable extent.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended that in future the proceeds of all loans raised with the assistance of a Government guarantee shall be used solely for the purchase of British goods and the employment of British labour?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend refers to guarantees for loans for capital works under the Trade Facilities Acts, applicants are normally required to undertake to use none but British materials and employ none but British labour.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CREDITS.

Mr. THOMAS HENDERSON: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give a list of the people who were called as witnesses by the Committee on Agricultural Credit, with the organisations they represent; and whether co-operative banking and trade organisations were invited to give evidence?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The answer to the second part of the question is, I understand, in the negative, The hon. Member will appreciate that the Committee to which he refers was not a Departmental Committee but a Sub-Committee of the Cabinet. The proceedings were, therefore, both confidential and informal, and I am not prepared to create a precedent by publishing the names of witnesses from whom evidence was heard or who were consulted privately by the Cabinet Sub-Committee in the course of their deliberations.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is Parliament going to be asked to adjudicate on the Report of this Committee and be kept in the dark as to the witnesses and evidence submitted on co-operative credit matters, whilst you entirely ignore the co-operative movement?

Sir R. SANDERS: I do not think we are keeping them in the dark.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government has accepted the recommendations of the Committee on Agricultural Credits; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to implement these recommendations?

Sir R. SANDERS: A Bill is being drafted on the lines of the recommendations of the Committee, and will be considered by the Government as soon as it is completed, with a view to presentation to the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Will that include Scotland, or will there be a separate Bill for Scotland?

Sir R. SANDERS: I think it includes Scotland.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government are going to present this Bill for agricultural credits without letting the House be aware of the evidence of the witnesses called by the Committee making the recommendations?

Sir R. SANDERS: Yes, Sir, that is quite in accordance with precedent.

BRITISH CATTLE (CANADA).

Commander BELLAIRS: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state
the conditions under which cattle from Great Britain are now admitted into, Canada?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the reply is rather long, I propose, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
At present, owing to recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, the import of cattle from England and Wales into Canada is prohibited. Cattle from Scotland are admitted provided the animals, are accompanied by the usual certificates and by an affidavit from the shipper that they have been in Scotland for 60 days immediately before shipment.
Cattle from Scotland must also comply with the following general Regulations in regard to animals coming from Great Britain:—
An import permit for cattle must first be obtained from the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture, and animals must be landed at Vancouver, Victoria, Quebec, St. John, Halifax or Charlottetown. They must be accompanied by (a) a veterinary certificate and (b) an export certificate-issued by the Ministry stating that the district whence the animals come has been free from cattle plague, contagious pleuro-pneumonia and foot-and-mouth disease for six months prior to shipment. The animals are examined on arrival and must then go into quarantine for 30 days. If six months old or over the cattle will not be discharged from quarantine until they have been submitted to the tuberculin test.

BARLEY.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the estimated total number of quarters of barley grown in Great Britain in 1922?

Sir R. SANDERS: The estimated quantity of barley produced in Great Britain in 1922 was 5,804,000 quarters.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous drop in the price of barley and of the very great hardship it has involved to the farmers, and will he make representations to the Treasury that this must continue so long as the excessive Beer Duty is maintained?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am quite aware— indeed, painfully aware—of the drop. I have heard rumours that representations on the subject of the Beer Duty have already been made to the Treasury.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right Gentleman not aware that the enormous drop in the price of barley has not been reflected in the price of beer?

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Ministry is now demanding from local authorities which instituted allotments under the Cultivation of Lands Order, 1917, any credit balance arising there-from; and, if so, whether he can state on what grounds this claim is made?

Sir R. SANDERS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I am glad to have this opportunity of stating the grounds on which the claim is made. The local authorities in question have acted on behalf of the Crown in this matter, subject to certain limitations as to the expenditure to be incurred, and the credit balance in question are, therefore, claimed as moneys in the hands of agents of the Crown.

Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these allotments are being taken over by the local authorities, and are not the local authorities being involved in considerable expense? Will he not, in view of this, reconsider the decision?

Sir R. SANDERS: That is a different question. If the hon. Member will put it down, I shall be glad to consider it.

LABOURERS.

Mr. HAROLD GRAY: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated number of men engaged at the present time as farm labourers?

Sir R. SANDERS: The numbers of male agricultural workers in England and Wales on 4th June, 1921, as returned by occupiers of holdings of more than one acre in extent, were 612,000 regular workers and 131,000 casual workers. These figures do not include the occupiers, but include sons and other male relatives working on the holdings. It is not possible to give a trustworthy estimate
of the numbers employed at the present time.

Mr. GRAY further: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the Government propose to introduce any legislation of a sufficiently drastic nature to enable the farmers to increase the present inadequate wage of farm labourers?

Sir R. SANDERS: No direct legislation of the kind indicated by the hon. Member is contemplated, but. I hope that the Government may be able to propose measures for the relief of agriculture which will assist in making it-more profitable, and so enable higher wages to be paid.

Mr. HAYDAY: Send them overseas!

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS (INSPECTORS).

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the Order of the Minister, dated 5th January, 1923 (No. 1234), under which any power conferred upon a local authority under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914, may now be exercised by the Minister or any inspector of the Ministry, he is aware of the fears of the local authorities that confusion may arise; and if he will state to what extent and under what circumstances it is the intention of the Minister to exercise such power?

Sir R. SANDERS: The reply to the first part is in the negative. The Order in question merely confers on inspectors of the Ministry, as representing the central authority, similar powers to those possessed by veterinary inspectors of local authorities under the Diseases of Animals Acts. In a recent ease of suspected foot-and-mouth disease, in which it was considered necessary immediately to prohibit all local movement of stock, it was found that, in the absence of the inspector of the local authority, the Ministry's inspector had no power to act. It is intended that the powers conferred by the Order shall be exercised in cases of this kind, and it is not proposed to curtail the powers possessed by officers of local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Does not that give an inspector of the Ministry the same power as the local authorities have, and will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is no confusion between the two?

Sir R. SANDERS: That is just what the question asks. It does.

HOLDINGS ACT (CONSOLIDATION BILL).

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, for the convenience of agriculturists, he will introduce a Bill to consolidate all the Acts relating to agricultural holdings in England and Wales?

Sir R. SANDERS: A Bill to consolidate the law relating to agricultural holdings was introduced in another place on Wednesday last, 28th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION.

PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

Mr. HURD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the disappointment felt in the Dominions at the delay in announcing the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to wireless communication; and whether he can now state what that policy is?

The PRIME MINISTER: The policy to be adopted with regard to Imperial wireless communications has recently been under review by the Imperial Communications Committee under the Chairmanship of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the recommendations of that Committee have now been approved by the Government.
In view of developments in the science of wireless telegraphy and other circumstances which have arisen since the late Government decided upon the policy of a State-operated wireless chain, it is not considered necessary any longer to exclude private enterprise from participation in wireless telegraphy within the Empire.
The Government has therefore decided to issue licences for the erection of wireless stations in this country for communication with the Dominions, Colonies and foreign countries subject to the conditions necessary to secure British control and suitable arrangements for the working of the traffic
At the same time, the Government has decided that it is necessary in the interests of national security that there should be a wireless station in this country capable of communicating with
the Dominions and owned and operated by the State. A station of this kind will therefore be erected as early as possible, and it will be available for commercial traffic as well as for service messages.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will there be a station at Mitcham?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will private enterprise be allowed to go ahead, without opposition from the State subsidised service?

MID-SCOTLAND SHIP CANAL.

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he has completed his promised inquiry into the proposal to construct a Mid-Scotland ship canal; and, if he has done so, at what conclusions he has arrived?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies on this subject given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to the hon. Members for Dundee on the 15th February and the 1st March. If the advocates of the canal will put forward a definite scheme and estimates, they will be most carefully examined, but no evidence has been adduced that the proposed canal would pay its way commercially, and I do not think that the very heavy initial expenditure could be justified at the present time.

Mr. SHINWELL: How can you arrive at a conclusion when no evidence has been submitted which justifies the rejection of a scheme unless the scheme has been submitted to the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government is capable of forming an estimate.

Mr. SHINWELL: Do I understand it is capable of forming an estimate without a scheme having been submitted to it?

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is the Prime Minister making inquiries as to the practicability of such a scheme?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government only make inquiries when a definite scheme is submitted.

Mr. MOREL: Are we to understand that no scheme has been submitted at all?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not, so far as I know.

Mr. R. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of local authorities in Scotland have petitioned in favour of the scheme proceeding, and does he think they would do so unless there was evidence in favour of it?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question not of schemes but of local authorities.

Mr. LAMBERT: Was not a good deal of evidence on this subject given before the Committee of Imperial Defence?

Dr. CHAPPLE: Is it not true that several schemes have already been submitted to the Government? Are they still under consideration, or have they been turned down?

The PRIME MINISTER: The subject was considered by the Royal Commission on Canals. I have no information later.

KENYA COLONY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has seen the resolution passed by the convention of Europeans in Kenya stating that if, through the ill-considered advice of His Majesty's Ministers, they are forced into action prejudicial to peace, then the responsibility will rest on His Majesty's Ministers; whether, seeing that this resolution is contrary to the relations which have hitherto existed between His Majesty's Ministers and Parliament on the one hand and settlers in Crown Colonies on the other, he will assure this House that no change in the established rights of this House will be made in response to threats from a body of settlers who constitute less than one-tenth per cent. of the population of the Crown Colony?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have been asked to take this question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has seen a Press report of the resolution referred to, but he has no confirmation of it. The only resolution reported to him officially is as follows:—
That this Convention gives His Excellency the Governor an assurance that it will do all in its power to discourage and prevent any direct action being taken by European community during the progress of the negotiations in England on Indian
question between His Excellency, the Convention Delegates and the Imperial Government provided that no attempt is made by the Imperial Government to force an issue during that period.
In the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State it would be a mistake to allow any resolution of the kind referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question to prejudice the attempt which the Secretary of State is making to achieve a settlement by agreement. Clearly a resolution of such a character could not affect the responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers to the Crown and to Parliament.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it from that that the Secretary of State has received threats of direct action from the Colony and that direct action is being withheld pending these negotiations? Is that a position considered by the Government to be consonant with their self-respect?

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 112 and 115.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what are the terms of settlement, confidentially laid by the Governor of Kenya before the European Convention and a large assembly of the ordinary public at Nairobi and whether, in the composition of the deputation which is to accompany the Governor to England in order to discuss details of a settlement with the Secretary of State, due care will be taken to ensure that all the interests concerned are represented;
(2) at what date the Governor of Kenya is expected to arrive in England to discuss questions connected with the status of Indians in that Colony; whether European and Indian delegates will accompany him; and whether any action will be taken with regard to the proposed restrictions on immigration, or amendment of the Constitution of the Colony, before the discussions in London take place?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The communication made by the Governor forms part of the attempt to attain by agreement a settlement of the various outstanding questions relating to the position of Indians in the Colony and, pending the Governor's arrival and the discussions which will follow, any statement as to the nature of the settlement proposed would, in my opinion, be prejudicial to the success of the negotiations. I understand
that the Governor will be accompanied by two representatives of the settler community and an unofficial member of the executive council who is closely in tour, with municipal questions. Probably one missionary will also come, and it is understood that the Indian leaders intend, if possible, to send one or two members. The Governor proposes to leave Kenya early in April and will arrive early in May. Pending the discussions it is not intended to take any action with regard to immigration or the amendment of the Constitution.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ROAD SCHEMES.

Mr. MUIR: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the promises he made in Glasgow on 23rd December last, in reply to a deputation on unemployment, that utility schemes of road-making, new roads, etc., involving an outlay of £885,000 would be put in hand immediately, have not yet been carried out; that one of the schemes, namely, the Annicsland-Duntocher road, will not be started for some weeks yet as tenders arc only now being received from contractors for the work; and will he say if he can do anything to hasten the placing of these contracts so that work may be found for some of the 85,000 Glasgow unemployed?

The PRIME MINISTER: No effort has been spared to further the preparations for these road works, and officers of the Ministry of Transport have been continuously engaged in assisting the engineers of the local authorities in the necessary surveys and other preliminaries connected with the working out of the schemes. The Director-General of Roads has himself repeatedly visited the area to attend conferences on the subject, and every possible step is being taken to expedite the placing of the contracts, but the hon. Member will appreciate that to start works of this magnitude without proper surveys and estimates might lead to great waste of public money.

DINGWALL AND CROMARTY LIGHT RAILWAY.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the Government sanctioned and supported the Dingwall and Cromarty Light Railway before the War; that on four and a half mites of it the rails were laid
down; that these rails were taken by the Government for war purposes; and that all construction of the railway was stopped; and will he now, in view of the unemployment in the district and of the great advantage that this railway would prove to the industrial community, grant the necessary facilities to proceed with the work?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Minister of Transport. My hon. Friend is aware that this project was sanctioned and the work started before the War. During the War the permanent way materials were required for military purposes, but, as the right hon. Member has already been informed, the company were reimbursed for this material and for the cost of relaying. The conditions which it would be necessary to fulfil before the Government could consider the question of increasing its contribution have already been communicated to the promoters, but, so far as my hon. Friend is aware, the local financial support necessary before any grant could be considered is not as yet forthcoming.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment.

EASTER RECESS.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the early date of Easter this year he will consider whether it would suit the convenience of Members and of the Government to have only a week's Adjournment at Easter and a longer Adjournment than usual at Whitsuntide?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind, but I am not in a position to make any announcement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

AIR ARM.

Viscount CURZON: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has as yet come to any decision on the question of whether the Royal Navy is to have the sole control and responsibility for its own air arm?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into the co-operation and correlation of the three Services from the point of view of national and imperial defence, of which the question will form a specific part.

Viscount CURZON: Can we have some indication of the terms of reference to this Committee? Will the question be decided as a whole, or will the naval question have prior consideration?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference are being prepared. I can say no more at present. As to the second question, I should like to have notice of that.

Captain BENN: Can we have an assurance that no action will be taken to disintegrate the Air Force without the direct consent of this House?

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we had a direct promise last spring from the then Leader of the House that a Committee would be appointed? How is it we have no result from that?

The PRIME MINISTER: That Committee sat but did not report. This Committee will, I hope, both sit and report.

Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would not like to say that no change will be made before it has been laid before the House, but it is very unlikely.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can we have the names of the members of the Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: The members have been selected, but we have not yet got their consent.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has any time limit been fixed for the deliberations of the Committee?

Personnel (Reductions).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the recent order entailing further discharges
of naval ratings with a month's notice is causing widespread consternation at the naval ports; whether so short a notice does not conflict with the accepted traditions of naval service; and, in view of the extreme difficulty at the present time of finding work on shore, will he consider the possibility if not of giving longer notice, at any rate, of granting a higher bonus than£20 especially in view of the fact that should the same ratings desire to secure their discharge from the Royal Navy, they will be called upon to pay a very much higher sum to the State; whether he can give an assurance that no further discharges will take place; and can he say, seeing that the first order regarding reductions was issued as far back as 12th May, 1922, why the recent order of compulsory discharges was not issued in time to admit of selection being made from amongst men serving in the Atlantic Fleet which left home waters on 18th January, 1923.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): I need hardly say that the Admiralty profoundly regret the necessity of ordering the compulsory discharge of several hundred ratings. This measure became necessary by reason of the very large reductions in personnel which have had to be made during the present financial year. I regret that it is impossible to modify the terms of compensation in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend. It is not anticipated that any more compulsory discharges will be necessary. With regard to the last part of the question, the reasons for not issuing earlier the order for compulsory discharge were, first, the wish of the Admiralty to effect the maximum number of discharges on a voluntary basis, and second, owing to the wide distribution of men over the whole world, the great practical difficulty of ascertaining definitely at an earlier stage the precise number of volunteers of the different branches and grades who would be ready for discharge within the current financial year.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that thousands of pounds, in addition to retired pay, have been paid to officers of similar age and length of service and that it was held out to these men, in the official pamphlet asking them to join
the Navy, that their prospects were good and they were secure of employment and ultimate pension? Will he give me the answer to that?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question is too argumentative.

NAVAL DEFENCE (EUROPE).

Viscount CURZON: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech made by the Federal Prime Minister of Australia last Friday, wherein he stated that he believed that a European naval defence scheme was imperative, and that a common understanding on foreign polity and naval defence could not be reached until representatives of Great Britain and the Dominions met, and that the Australian Government was convinced that it is imperative that an Imperial Conference should be held as early as possible; and whether, in view of this fact, he proposes to take steps to convene an Imperial Conference at an early date to discuss the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the Press reports of the speech by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia to which my Noble Friend refers. As regards the latter part of his question, I am in communication with the Governments of the Dominions and of India, and I hope that it may be possible to hold a meeting of the Imperial Conference later in the year.

NEAR EAST (PAPERS).

61. Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: asked the Prime Minister when there wil be laid before Parliament the Papers relative to the events leading up to the Greek defeat in Asia Minor and the fall of Smyrna last year and to the negotiations with the Turkish Nationalist Authorities in September?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave him on the 19th February last.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the Papers will be published at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to which I referred the hon. Member was to the effect that, in my opinion, until the Turkish Treaty was ratified, nothing but harm could result from the publication of the Papers. If he will put his question down, I will reply to it.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will a Supplementary Estimate be laid for naval and military operations in the Near East?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

TREATY WITH KING FEISAL.

Mr. MOREING: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the uncertainty created by recent announcements on the subject, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to abide by the Treaty entered into with the King of Iraq?

The PRIME MINISTER: For the present I must refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on the 20th February, in the course of which I informed the House that, a Committee of the Cabinet is considering the whole question.

Mr. LAMBERT: When shall we know whether this Treaty is to be submitted to the House for ratification?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it to be held up indefinitely?

The PRIME MINISTER: It must be held up until some progress is made with Turkey on the Peace Treaty.

POPULATION.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 114.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total population of Iraq; and approximately what proportions belong to the Shiah and Sunni sects respectively?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: According to a census taken in 1920, the population of Iraq numbered 2,849,282, made up as follows:

Sunnis
1,146,685


Shiahs
1,494,015


Non-Moslems
208,582



2,849,282

LORD ADVOCATE.

Mr. THOMAS JOHNSTON: 64.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the absence of a Lord Advocate for Scotland in this House is an increasingly serious handicap to the proper consideration of Scottish business; and how long the present state of affairs is likely to continue?

Mr. BUCHANAN: 63.
asked the Prime Minister when the post of Lord Advocate of Scotland is going to be filled by a Member of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot name a particular date, but I hope that it will not be long before the position is regularised.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulty that has arisen upstairs in consequence of the absence of the Lord Advocate? Will he not take steps to expedite the appointment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered that question.

HONOURS LISTS, SCOTLAND.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether, before the gazetting of titles of honour in Scotland, the Lyon King of Arms is consulted; and, if not, whether he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory that this should be done?

The PRIME MINISTER: Arrangements have recently been made whereby Lyon King of Arms will be consulted in the cases to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

Major WOOD: 'Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted in a recent case which has created great interest in Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my answer implied that I was not.

Mr. PRINGLE: Why not make this retrospective?

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Lord COLUM CRICHTON-STUART: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture
whether, having regard to the fact that a large proportion of the ex-service smallholders established on the land since the War are admittedly in acute financial distress, he will, in the interest of ex-service men themselves, discontinue for a time, if he has not already done so, the process of creating new agricultural holdings, and in the meantime take under review all the conditions hitherto governing their establishment?

Sir R. SANDERS: For reasons of economy, the Ministry has imposed, since July, 1920, such serious restrictions on the capital cost and annual loss of each new small holding created by councils, that the acquisition of additional land for the purpose has been practicable only in very exceptional circumstances. The suggestion in the first part of my Noble Friend's question is, therefore, in effect, actually being followed by my Department. I fully recognise the ex-service smallholders, in common with other agriculturists, are suffering as a result of the agricultural depression. Councils and the Ministry are doing everything in their power to alleviate the present difficulties by granting abatements where necessary, and in some cases by reducing the permanent rents.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: Can the right hon. Gentleman consider relieving these smallholders of rates on improvements?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not now arise.

Mr. SHORT: 84.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number, if any, of ex-service men who are now being trained with a view to taking small holdings or finding employment in agriculture; and what prospects exist of their absorption within the industry?

Sir R. SANDERS: The scheme for training ex-service men in agriculture was finally closed on the 31st March, 1922, by which date all the men in training under the scheme had completed their courses. 4,995 men in all received training under the scheme, and, whilst it will he appreciated that it is extremely difficult to trace the movements of the men after leaving training, my Department has been able to obtain definite information that 2,500 have been absorbed into the industry, either as smallholders or as wage earners.

Mr. SHORT: 85.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total number of ex-service men and others who have been settled on small holdings or upon the land under the land settlement scheme, and the cost of such settlement; can he say if any record is kept of the success or failure of such settlers; and, if so, what does the record indicate?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the reply is rather long, and includes a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The total number of ex-service men and others who have been settled on small holdings or upon the land in England and Wales since the inauguration of the Land Settlement Scheme is 19,112, in addition to which it is estimated that a further 1,422 will ultimately be settled on lands already acquired for small holdings but not yet equipped. The net total cost of acquisition of lands to date, including purchase price and legal expenses, etc., is approximately £9,965,000, and the estimated total cost of equipping the land is about £5,917,000. I have no complete record up to date of the number of settlers who have failed, but it is believed that the proportion of failures on the schemes provided by local authorities is not more than 5 per cent. The bad seasons and the agricultural depression have, unfortunately, placed smallholders, in common with all agriculturists, in an exceedingly difficult position, but, although it is too early to draw any general conclusion, the present indications are that the majority of the men settled will succeed in making a satisfactory livelihood.

BRICKLAYER'S IMPROVER.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: 106.
asked the Minister of Labour whether a brick layer's improver trained under the Ministry's scheme, and provided with work at the prescribed rate, is entitled to resume unemployment pay from the Employment Exchange after throwing up his employment on the plea that he would be better off on unemployed pay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): A person who left his employment for the reason given would
be disqualified for six weeks for the receipt of unemployment benefit. Should the facts be disputed there would, of course, be the right of appeal to the Courts of Referees and in certain circumstances to the Umpire. If the hon. Member will give be particulars of any case I will gladly have inquiry made.

MEMBERS' MOTOR CARS.

Viscount CURZON: 88
asked the First Commissioners of Works whether he is aware that under an Order dating from 1836 Members' cars are now not being allowed to stand in the Star Court; whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience is being caused to Members as a result; whether he is aware that part of the accommodation for cars was taken away to form a shelter for taxicab drivers with the result that accommodation is almost entirely lacking; and will he take steps to rescind the Order and, in conjunction with the police authorities, make such arrangements as will meet the general convenience of all concerned?

Captain Viscount EDNAM: 89.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the police have given orders to prevent hon. Members leaving their cars in the Star Court in future; and, if so, why?

Captain WATSON: 87.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the general convenience of Members whose cars are unattended by chauffeurs before deciding to prohibit cars being left in the Star Court?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): The points raised in these questions concern the Serjeant-at-Arms, who, I understand, is considering the whole matter of the parking of cars in Star Court.

Mr. HAYDAY: Put Curzon in the Star Chamber!

BLIND PERSONS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 94.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, the number of local
authorities who have not submitted schemes for the exercise of their powers under the Blind Persons Act, 1920?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of local authorities who have not submitted schemes for the exercise of their powers under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, is 10.

Mr. WHITE further: 95.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, as representing the Ministry of Health, the number of workshops, hostels, and training centres for blind persons which have been opened since the Blind Persons Act, 1920, came into operation?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: Since the Blind Persons Act, 1920, came into operation, four new workshops have been opened, and considerable extensions have been made to six existing workshops. One new hostel has been opened and one extended. Training centres are under the control of the Board of Education, but my right hon. Friend is informed by that Department that they have recognised eight new centres and four new hostels for training purposes.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: 108.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the number and average amount of pecuniary-need pensions paid during 1922 to poor dependants of deceased ex-service men, the number of pensions which were reduced, and the average amount of the reduction effected during the same period?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): There are at present in payment about 29,000 need pensions to parents at an average weekly rate of 12.s. 2d. Of these, some 19,000 cases came under review in the course of the year 1922, with the result that some were increased in amount and others decreased. The average pension drawn in these cases was about 12s. 5d. a week

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. RAWLINSON: 109.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that soldiers in receipt of a wound or other pension before the War, who were called up for service in England during the War, are getting no extra pension for the years they served in England during the War; and whether he will see his way to remedy this anomaly?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): I have been asked to reply. A pre-War pensioner who re-enlisted during the War continued to draw his pension together with his pay during his further service, and that service cannot therefore count towards increase of pension. But his pension has been re-assessed at the rates and under the conditions laid down in the Royal Warrants, if such re-assessment were beneficial to him, and I am not aware that any anomaly exists.

WHALE FISHERIES, SHETLAND.

Mr. HARBORD: 102.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if, seeing that the herring fishing in Shetland waters is being ruined through whaling operations, he will exercise the powers conferred upon him by the Whale Fisheries (Amendment) Act of 1922 by at once cancelling the existing licences of those engaged in the whale fisheries, in view of the inquiry as to the damage done by whaling held by the Fishery Board for Scotland last year and the Board reporting unanimously in favour of the prohibition of whaling?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): My Noble Friend has considered the application made under the Act of 1922, and has decided that he is not justified in making any Order in present circumstances. I would remind the hon. Member that the Fishery Board's inquiry was held, not last year, but in 1919, and that Parliament, having the Board's Report and the other facts before it, authorised the Secretary for Scotland to cancel or suspend licences only in the event of his being satisfied that the prosecution of the whaling industry under the licences is prejudicial to the herring or other sea fisheries. On the information before him, my Noble
Friend is not so satisfied, and is therefore unable to make any Order in present circumstances.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire whether the deficiency of the herring fishery was not due to oceanic currents, and will he arrange for an investigation into oceanic currents?

Captain ELLIOT: It is exactly because my Noble Friend is not satisfied that the deficiency in the herring catch is solely due to the whaling industry that he has found himself unable to make an Order prohibiting whaling.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry on the West Coast of Shetland has been entirely ruined and the people are leaving the island because of whaling being carried on?

Captain ELLIOT: That is rather an exaggerated statement, when one reflects that no fewer than 35,000 crans were taken from the west side of Shetland in May, June and July, 1922.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot pursue the herrings at Question Time.

EGYPT (BOMB OUTRAGES).

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State whether he has any statement to make regarding the bomb outrages on the British forces in Cairo; whether he can give an assurance that adequate steps are being taken by the military authorities to prevent the recurrence of such outrages, and whether the military authorities are satisfied that the Egyptian Government is doing all that it can to render assistance?

Mr. R. McNEILL: An official report on the outrage reported in this morning's newspapers has not yet been received. The Noble Lord may rest assured that Lord Allenby, in concert with the military authorities, is taking every possible step to prevent the recurrence of such crimes and to arrest the criminals. I have no reason to believe that the Egyptian Government are not rendering all the assistance in their power.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Can the hon. Gentleman give any information as to
what transpired on the recent occasion of a deputation representing the Egyptian Affairs Committee to the Prime Minister, of which no report has been issued?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question which has been put.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, esquire, for the Borough of Willesden (East Division).

COAL MINES AND MINERAL ROYALTIES BILL.

Order for Second Reading upon Friday read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

NATIONALISATION OF MINES AND INERALS BILL,

" to nationalise the mines and minerals of Great Britain and to provide for the national winning, distribution, and sale of coal and other minerals; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. LUNN, supported by Mr. Harts-horn, Mr. William Adamson, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Guest., and Mr. Walsh; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): At the close of my speech I shall beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I cannot make the Clauses of the Bill intelligible without some reference, which shall be as brief as possible, to previous Insurance Acts. We all know the story of the old lady who said she did not hold with all the history taught nowadays. She believed in letting by-gones be bygones. In the complex system of our Unemployment Insurance, I am afraid it is impossible to let bygones be bygones. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?" It would be very unfortunate for the applicants, because the rights and privileges of the past extends into the future. The House will remember that the Government of the day in 1920 initiated, by the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, the policy of Unemployment Insurance on its present extended scale. That Act was the main foundation on which the subsequent superstructure has been raised. In the early summer of 1920 it was obvious to those who were experienced in the meteorology of trade and industrial cyclones that, after the period of expansion of 1919–20, a period of marked contraction was inevitable. The then Government therefore made provision early in 1920 by framing and passing into law the Act of 1920, which came into operation on 8th November of that year. This Act initiated a broad-based scheme of unemployment insurance for 12,000,000 of workers, approximately all the industrial workers in the country, with the exception of agricultural labourers and domestic servants.
The Act of 1920 was founded in its essentials on the experience which the trade unions had acquired in providing similar benefits for their own members, together with such modifications as experience in the working of the previous limited Act of 1911 had shown to be desirable. The edifice of the unemployment insurance system was raised on this
Act of 1920, and it has two main pillars. To change the metaphor, the benefits under the Acts flow in two main and parallel streams of covenanted and un-covenanted benefits. These two streams of benefit flow side by side across the and wastes of unemployment, and also, like two great rivers which ultimately unite, these two streams of benefit, covenanted and un-covenanted, have shown in their later progress a tendency to mingle their flow. Let me take first the covenanted benefit, with which the Act commenced. Broadly speaking, the basis of covenanted benefit was that benefit was to be payable only in respect of contributions already made by the applicants for benefits. There were also formal conditions to be satisfied, such as application in prescribed form, etc. But the vital condition was that until the applicant had paid 12 contributions he would not be entitled to claim benefit. That condition was coupled with the further limitation known as the one-in-six rule, namely, that a man could only claim one-week's benefit in respect of every six weeks of contribution with a maximum limit of 15 weeks' benefit in any one year.
I want to trace the inevitable steps by which un-covenanted benefit, that is, benefit paid ahead of contributions, has had, owing to the dire necessities of the situation, to be developed. It was realised as early as the summer of 1920, that some people might require assistance at the commencement before sufficient contributions could have accumulated to their credit. Section 44 of the Act consequently allowed, as a temporary measure for 12 months, the payment of eight weeks' benefit in favour of any contributor, even though he had only paid four weeks' contributions. This was the thin end of the wedge, but, very shortly, the wedge entered deeper. This temporary provision proved insufficient. The cloud of unemployment settled rapidly over the whole country. By the end of November, 1920, no fewer than half a million people were unemployed, and by the end of December of that year the number had increased to 700,000. As the main Act had only just come into operation its provisions could be of but little assistance to this large number of unemployed, as they had practically no contributions to their credit. Consequently, in December, 1920, a short Bill
was introduced, the effect of which was to allow the payment of eight weeks' benefit under Section 44 without requiring even the four weeks' contribution, provided that the applicant could show insurable employment varying from four to 10 weeks since December, 1919. By December, 1920, owing to the paralysis of unemployment which had suddenly overtaken us, the stream of un-covenanted benefit was started in strong flood, alongside and in addition to normal or covenanted benefit.
4.0 P.M.
In March, 1921, a third Act was passed. The contribution was raised, and by a subsequent Act in July, 1921, it was raised again, so that by the effect of those two Acts the rate of contribution, for men, for instance, from employers and employed, which, under the 1920 Act, had been 8d., was raised to 1s. 3d. At the same time un-covenanted benefit might be paid up to 16 weeks, and subsequently up to 22 weeks. This great extension of the un-covenanted benefit was, of course, strictly limited. First of all, the 16 weeks, and, ultimately, the 22 weeks, were to be payable over a definite period of Lime, and here we first come across the phrase "special period." In other words, this benefit of 16 plus 6, or 22 weeks, was to be available for the first special period from March, 1921, to November, 1921. There was a further or second special period running on from the first week in November, 1921. Then the conditions of the Act of 1920 were somewhat strengthened. For instance, the well-known condition that the applicant was to be "capable of and available for work" but "unable to obtain suitable employment" was supplemented by the additional requirement that he must be "normally in insurable employment, genuinely seeking whole-time employment, but unable to obtain it." Further, he had to show that he had been employed in insurable employment in at least 20 weeks since a given date. I think it was December, 1919.
This provision carried us over the winter of 1921, but it had become evident —the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) will bear it in mind—in the spring of 1922 that it would be necessary to make further provision in view of the
continued contraction in trade and the still large number of unemployed. Accordingly, a further Act was passed in April, 1922, providing for two further special periods, the third and fourth. The third was to run from 6th April to 1st November last year and the fourth from 2nd November, 1922, to 1st July, 1923. I propose to say practically nothing about the third special period, because that ran out last year, but I must say a good deal about the fourth special period, because not only are its provisions in operation at the moment, but it is proposed under the Bill very substantially to extend them. In the fourth special period under the Act of 1922, extensions were granted both of covenanted and un-covenanted benefit. I will take the un-covenanted benefit first of all. During the fourth special period un-covenanted benefit might he drawn for maximum of 22 weeks. Twelve of these might be irrespective of whether contributions had been paid or not. That was under Section 4. Any further un-covenanted benefit beyond the 12 weeks which might be given in periods of five and five, or 10 altogether, was to depend upon whether contributions had been previously paid.
So far I have been endeavouring to state as shortly as I can the history of un-covenanted benefit, but from 1920, and throughout the whole period, the parallel stream of covenanted benefit has also been flowing. Indeed, not only have the rights of insured contributors to receive covenanted benefit been maintained, but they have been very considerably strengthened. By the first Act of 1921 it was provided that the maximum number of weeks' benefit payable in one year should be increased from 15, at which it then stood, to 26 weeks as from July, 1922. Further, and here I come to the point at which, as I mentioned, the two streams of benefit tended somewhat to mingle, two very considerable concessions were made to insured contributors in the first Act of 1922. During the fourth special period, in which we are now, it was provided that any balance of contributions under the old Acts and all contributions paid since that date should, first of all, be revived in an applicant's favour, notwithstanding that he had already drawn benefit against them, and, secondly, that they should be doubled in
value for the purpose of what I have described as the one-in-six rule. Supposing a man had paid 24 contributions during 1921, he would be entitled under the normal one-in-six rule to four weeks' benefit.
Members may ask what was the object of this revival and doubling. I will tell them. The object, generally, of paying increased benefit, whether covenanted or un-covenanted, was to make provision, as far as possible, for those, and only for those, genuinely engaged in industry. It is quite clear that one of the best tests, and certainly one of the most available tests as far as the Employment Exchanges are concerned, whether a man has been genuinely engaged in industry is whether he has been paying contributions as a genuinely employed person. The Government decided to rely on this test of payment of contributions, and in the case of a contributor who had paid 24 contributions and had already received four weeks' benefit the Act of 1922 provided that he might, during the fourth special period, not only again receive benefit in respect of them, but that his contributions should be revived, not on the basis of one-in-six, but on the basis of one-in-three. Therefore, in the case I have taken of a man who had paid 24 weeks, and had already received four weeks' benefit, he would during the fourth special period be entitled to eight further weeks' covenanted benefit. That would be in addition to any benefit up to 12 weeks that he could receive on the un-covenanted side. I must apologise if I have been forced to make a somewhat lengthy historical introduction, but I am afraid that without it it would be impossible to understand the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill itself falls into four or five main divisions. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 make financial provision, first of all, for the period from 19th April to 17th October— that is Clause 1—and secondly, for the following 12 months from October, 1923, to October, 1924. That is Clauses 2 and 3. As many hon. Members are aware, we have in the past been somewhat disposed not to look sufficiently ahead. I have therefore attempted in making provision, firstly, from now to October, and, secondly, from October next till October, 1924, to secure reasonable provision at any rate for the next 18 months and also, possibly, for the benefit years beyond
that. We propose in Clause 4 that dependants' benefit, which otherwise would abruptly come to an end if by any possibility the loan were paid off and the deficiency period terminated during the next 18 months, shall not run any risk of being so summarily terminated. Many Members will be aware that there has been much discussion over what is known as the continuity rule. I propose to modify this so as to secure a greater degree of elasticity. I think this will be of real benefit to applicants. Fourthly, there has been for some time difficulty in the country as to the authorities responsible for finding employment for children between 14 and 18. An inquiry was held recently by Lord Chelmsford on behalf of the Government, and Clause 6 embodies or purports to embody the conclusions at which Lord Chelmsford arrived in his Report. Lastly, there are certain administrative provisions with which I do not think I need detain the House at this stage.
Taking the Clauses a little more at length, Clause 1 makes provision up to 17th October next and extends the fourth special period. That was why I had to describe that period at some little length. Many hon. Members are aware that a certain number of beneficiaries commenced to drop out of benefit on 24th January last. An additional number, not, I think, a large number compared with the whole, have been exhausting benefit each week since. I have had numerous questions addressed to me in the House on the subject. The reason for this exhaustion is that under Section 4 of the Act of 1922, as I have already indicated, 12 weeks' free or un-covenanted benefit were available, commencing from 2nd November, 1922, and those who had no other ground for claiming benefit would drop out at the end of 12 weeks, which first elapsed on 24th January last. This number who had received their maximum benefit of 12 weeks and had no further ground of claim has proved to be small. So far as we can ascertain, it was only slightly over 11,000.

Mr. HAYDAY: When?

Sir M. BARLOW: On 24th January. It was only the very limited class of those who failed to show that they had done a week's work, and paid a week's contribution since they came into insurance, who would be so restricted. There are,
I know, cases of works which have been closed for two years, and even longer. But I venture to suggest that it is not unsatisfactory that of the enormous number of insured persons now unemployed, roughly 1,340,000, only a little over 11,000 had exhausted benefit on 24th January, on this ground, namely, that since they came on the Fund they had done no work and had paid no contributions. This percentage, as the House will realise, is an exceedingly small one, under 1 per cent. of the whole. In other words, apart from 11,000 odd persons those who commenced to draw benefit on 2nd November and are now falling out of benefit each week have been able under the Acts to claim something more than the 12 weeks' minimum, because they have done some work and have paid some contribution. Taking the periods subsequent to 24th January, it is difficult to estimate the number of exhaustions each week. Down to the middle of February the number was just over 34,000. In any case, there is a limit of 22 weeks' maximum—that is under Section 4 of the Act of 1922—for the fourth special period in respect of both benefits, covenanted and un-covenanted, and the earliest date at which the 22 weeks' maximum can operate is the 4th April. By that time, so far as we can estimate—and we can only estimate— the maximum number of persons who will have gone off benefit will be at the outside 150,000. In my view the number will probably be appreciably less. I believe that I am correct in saying that on previous occasions much larger numbers than this have gone off benefit before any further extension was made. The proposals of Clause 1 of the Bill may be summarised as follows. First, the fourth special period is extended from the 1st July, the date at which it now terminates, until the 17th October next. That is in all— and I would draw attention to this— 50 weeks and not 52 weeks. Second, there is to be a maximum of 44 weeks' benefit available over the whole period.

Sir JOHN SIMON: What is the 50 weeks?

Sir M. BARLOW: From the 2nd November last year until the 17th October this year. We propose a benefit year from mid-October to mid-October, but the special period last year began in November, and the result is that there is a shortage of
two weeks on the full year. I draw attention to that, because 44 weeks' maximum would be available during the whole period and it is not 44 out of 52 weeks, but out of 50 weeks. Here again the 44 weeks may be made up in various proportions of covenanted and un-covenanted benefit or it may be even wholly un-covenanted.
Third, if and when an applicant has received 22 weeks' benefit in the fourth period from the 2nd November last there is to be a further grant of 22 weeks' additional un-covenanted benefit, but the additional 22 weeks will not commence until there has been an interposition of two weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am explaining the provisions now and, if hon. Members wish to criticise, either I or the Parliamentary Secretary will be happy, at the end of the discussion, to deal with any points that have been 'raised. In the case of purely covenanted benefit the limit is now to be extended from 18 weeks, in the case under Section 4 (5) of the Act of 1922 to 26 weeks during the extended fourth special period. It should also be noticed that the revival and doubling of contributions will continue during the special period down to 17th October next.
So much for the provisions until 17th October. Now for the subsequent period. Clauses 2 and 3 embody provision for the period from October, 1923, to 15th October, 1924, which is known as the first benefit year, and also for subsequent benefit years similarly constituted. I will explain why the period from October to October has been chosen. Up to the present our insurance year, that is, the year during which the cards run, has been from July to July, but experience has shown that it is convenient to have the 12 months during which benefit is payable computed separately from the 12 months during which contributions are received. Further, that the benefit 12 months should start two or three months later than the conclusion of the previous insurance year. There is the further point that admittedly the main burden of unemployment commences with the beginning of each winter. Therefore it is administratively desirable to make benefit begin approximately with the commencement of the winter season. As to the point which I have indicated now, that in any case it is desirable that the insurance year should terminate two
or three months before the benefit year begins, the explanation is that, in case there are any outstanding difficulties or claims which require adjustment, the intervening period of two or three months enables that to be done without any disturbance of the currency of benefit.
The Bill provides that in the first benefit year there is to be a limit in the case of covenanted benefit of 26 weeks. Second, the Minister can allow at his discretion, and subject to the provisions of the earlier Acts, alongside but not in addition to the covenanted benefit, 26 weeks of un-covenanted benefit. This should be enough to carry us well over the winter of 1923–4. The House should notice that the provision of these 26 weeks of un-covenanted benefit is available in the following way; first 12 weeks, then 3 weeks off, and then the remaining 14. Now as to dependants, who are dealt with in Clause 4. The House will remember the provision for dependants' allowance, in respect of wife and children, was instituted first by the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Act of 1921, which allowed 5s. in respect of a wife or invalid husband and 1s. in respect of each child, and special additional rates of contributions Were levied in order to permit of this very useful additional benefit. The provisions of the original Act were only for a period of six months, but it was further continued by the main Act of 1922 until the termination of the deficiency period, that is until the Treasury certifies that the loan has been paid off, and the Fund is solvent.
The consideration and determination of the general question of unemployment insurance may very likely necessitate further legislation later on when times become more normal, when special calculations as to insurance by industries are more ripe for consideration and solution. In the interval the existing Acts leave dependants' grants in an unsatisfactory and indefinite position, as they link them up with the deficiency period. Accordingly, we propose to continue the dependants' grants for the present, pending an ultimate reconsideration of the whole unemployment insurance programme. Now as to the continuity rule—

Sir J. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving any explanation of Subsection (2) of Clause 4?

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not propose to go into the financial proposal at the moment, unless the House specially desire it. The object of the Section is to make arrangements, so that if and when times become normal again, the contributions may be put on a reasonable basis. Scales are suggested in the Schedule as a maxima only. The Minister may fix rates of contribution on a lower scale.

Sir J. SIMON: Involving a variation?

Sir M. BARLOW: The same principle as in the Act of 1920. That is rather less than the State contribution at the moment. I do not go into it now, because it deflects my general argument. What we are contemplating in Clause 4 is what may happen when times become more normal, or so normal that the dependants' period comes to an end. Necessarily, we want to contemplate what a reasonable scale of contributions would be, somewhat on the basis of the Act of 1920, and what a reasonable addition in respect of dependants' allowances would be. The scales are set out in the Schedule, and will be discussed in another place. There are two matters which demand some consideration as to the waiting period and the continuity rule. As to the waiting period, I believe that most systems of unemployment insurance accept the principle of a waiting period. That is to say, before an applicant can receive benefit, he must have a certain number of days' unemployment. The principle is sound and in accord with trade union practices. The period was fixed at six days. No applicant can receive benefit unless and until he has been unemployed for that period.
Here we come to the second matter which I mentioned just now, the continuity rule. For the purpose of defining the six days of waiting period it is not necessary that the six days should be absolutely consecutive. Under Section 7 of the Act of 1920 the six days' waiting period may be computed as follows: two days on and two days off, and two days on and two days off, and so on for a period of 12 working days. Then at the end of the 12 days the six days' waiting period would be completed. But the continuity rule goes a great deal further than being a mere means of adjusting the waiting period. In the original Insurance Acts of 1911 and 1920 this question came before
the House. Representations were made in the case of industries where part or broken time was habitually worked, particularly I believe in the case of the cotton industry. Since the storm of unemployment has burst upon us during the last 2½ years we have become more familiar with the principle of part or broken time as a means of spreading employment. But this was only developing a practice which has been relied on in some of the highly organised industries for a great many years.
In view of this practice some provision had to be made in connection with the payment of benefit to meet the difficulty as to broken time. Prima facie benefit is only payable in respect of continuous unemployment. Clearly it is impossible to pay benefit for odd hours or every odd day of unemployment, but in order to meet this difficulty of broken time the continuity rule provides under Section 7 of the Act of 1920 that, in the cases there indicated, even though the time of employment is broken, such broken time may be treated as continuous employment. That is to say, two days on and two days off, and two days on and two days off would indicate four days of unemployment (assuming that the waiting period has been completed) for the purpose of benefit, there is further provision in favour of the applicant under this rule. This is what is technically known as the bridge, that is to say, a week of unemployment can, for the purposes of benefit, be linked up with a subsequent week of unemployment, though separated by two or three weeks of employment. Hon. Members may say, "But each week stands by itself." Of course, that is true. But the great advantage of the bridge is that the applicant has not to serve a second waiting period; the two weeks or periods of unemployment, when connected by the bridge, are treated as continuous without the break of a further waiting period.
Frequent representations have been made, both to the right hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) when he was Minister of Labour, and to myself, that the continuity rule, as I have outlined it, pressed hardly on certain industries, both so far as the definition of the waiting period was concerned and also in respect of the payment of benefit. The
case for the dockers in this regard has been put with special eloquence and persistence by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). I have had a Committee sitting for some time endeavouring to see whether we can modify still further the rule so as to meet this difficulty of broken time, especially in cases like that of the dockers, where broken time is probably inevitable. I am glad, therefore, to be able to announce that I propose, as indicated in Clause 5, to make a further modification which I believe will be of real assistance in the matter. I am rash enough even to hope that the hon. Member for St. Helens may not be entirely displeased with my new proposal. What that proposal amounts to is this: Any three days of unemployment within any period of six consecutive days, whether a calendar week or not, are to be treated as continuous unemployment far all the purposes of the continuity rule.

Sir F. BANBURY: What will that cost?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have not the Estimates with me. The cost will not be very considerable, I hope. Both for ascertainment of the waiting period and for the purpose of payment of benefit, that will be a modification of the continuity rule. Further, the principle of the bridge will be retained, extending over a period of three weeks, not of six.
I now come to Clause 6. As I mentioned just now, until recently there were considerable difficulties throughout the country with regard to the arrangements for the employment of young persons of from 14 to 18 years. There were two parallel systems working under two different Acts of Parliament, and, as was inevitable, there was a certain amount of friction. Provision might be made in a given locality, either under the Labour Exchanges Act of 1909 and through the local Employment Exchange employment committee, or by the education authority under the Choice of Employment Act, now embodied in the Education Act, 1921, Section 107. In the former case the Department responsible was the Ministry of Labour, and in the latter case the Board of Education. The difficulty did not exist in Whitehall; in fact an agreement had been come to between the two Departments as long ago as 1911. But in the provinces there was considerable friction, and, indeed, in one or two cases there were actually the two systems for dealing
with the employment of young persons both in operation in the same area. This was clearly not a satisfactory state of affairs.
The two systems operating roughly were as follows: The provision for the employment of these young persons through the Employment Exchanges was in force in 167 areas, and in 139 areas the arrangements were made by the local education authority. Then the matter was further complicated by the passage of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, which made the Ministry of Labour responsible in respect of the insurance of all young persons from 16 to 18 years of age. The late Cabinet appointed Lord Chelmsford to hold an inquiry into the subject. Shortly, his report indicated that it was desirable that the overlapping should terminate, and that local authorities should make a choice, which should bind them for a period of years, which of the two parallel systems they desired in their area. This arrangement carried with it a necessary corollary, which Lord Chelmsford accepted, namely, that in the area where the local education authority undertakes to be responsible for the employment work, it shall also be responsible for the insurance administration in respect of the young persons between the ages of 16 and 18. Clause 6 of the Bill makes provision accordingly, and may add that the Clause has been agreed by the two Departments concerned.
That concludes all the main clauses of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 10 contain two or three administrative Amendments which are of importance, but I think that at this stage I need not detain the House with them.
I have dealt with the principal clauses of the Bill, but I am sure the House will be interested to know what is the financial effect of the provisions which. I have outlined. As the Bill must pass before Easter, and as Parliamentary time is limited, I hope that we shall be able to carry the Financial Resolution this evening, otherwise the Committee Stage will be delayed and, within the limits of time available, that will be somewhat dangerous. The Financial Resolution was printed on the Order Paper two days ago, and there was circulated at the same time a Memorandum which I hope will make the matter clear. I will point out at once—I have been asked the question
specifically outside the Chamber—that the Financial Resolution does not relate to the financial proposals in Clauses 1 and 2, but covers only the two points of dependants' benefit and what I might call, for short, the Chelmsford Report.
It is not necessary for me to repeat at length the figures which I have outlined in the Memorandum. It must be borne in mind that under the Act of 1922 borrowing powers have been authorised by this House up to £30,000,000. At the moment the loan has reached about £17,000,000. The figure of unemployment stands as 1,340,000 or thereabouts. The drop in the figure of unemployment, to which I referred in my speech of a fortnight ago as having been fairly continuous since 1st January of this year, has been maintained. The figure on 1st January was 1,485,000; it now stands at 1,340,000, representing a fall of 145,000 in seven weeks. The decline has been distributed fairly evenly over the whole period and averages over 20,000 a week, and I have reason to expect a further substantial drop this week. I may be told that since 24th January a large number of those who have gone off the register are to be accounted for by the fact that considerable numbers have fallen out of benefit. I have had careful inquiry made as to this, and I am satisfied that, while it may be true that a certain number who have gone off benefit have ceased to register, it is by no means universally the ease. I think we may take it that the total figure of the drop in unemployment since 1st January, namely, 145,000, is very nearly an accurate figure (within 10,000 or so) for the purpose of representing the steady growth of employment in the country. I hope the House will agree that that is not an unsatisfactory figure.

Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his inquiry included any large town or city for the purposes of making his analysis?

Sir M. BARLOW: The figures given are taken from all over the country. I can give the figures for which the hon. Member asks, if he should desire them. As to the future, it is not easy to estimate what the cost is to be, but in any case the House will remember that no money will be voted directly from the Exchequer for the purpose; it will be borrowed under the loan powers which I at present possess.

Sir F. BANBURY: Do we not pay for that?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am sorry that that suggestion has been made. I think that those who make such a suggestion are going the most direct way to secure the result which they profess not to want. I have assumed, for the purposes of calculation, an average figure of unemployment for the next 18 months of 1,250,000 I hope the House will agree that, if trade revival shows any prospect of liveliness at all, that estimate is on a conservative basis. I hope that the drop will be considerably more than that. But, assuming that that is the average, then the burden on the fund should rise to £22,500,000 it April, 1924, but should fall again to £20,700,000 in October of the same year. I have seen some criticism urged on the ground that the present Bill makes no effort to embody the provisions relating to two things—first of all, insurance by industries, and, secondly, the Report of Sir Alfred Watson's Departmental Committee, which has been sitting recently to consider the whole of the unemployment insurance scheme. I can deal with this criticism in a sentence. Both the policy of insurance by industry and the Watson Report clearly require further consideration. The latter has appeared only in the last three or four days, and with regard to the former, I have not yet received considered answers to my Memorandum issued in December last from such leading and important associations as the Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress General Council. I shall press on with the consideration of further action with respect to both the above topics with all possible expedition.
Let me deal with possible criticisms of these proposals. I suppose that I shall be faced again with two types of critics. I suppose there will be two lions in my path, each of which, if he could only give full rein to his natural instinct, would devour the other. The one type of critic says that I am doing too much, and the other says that I am not doing enough, or, to repeat the metaphor, one lion roars at the increase of the loan charge, and the other lashes his tail at the mention of the word "gap." Critics of this character are probably to be found not only on the Labour Benches but in many parts of the country. Recently I had the
pleasure of making a tour of some of the industrial centres of this country, including Birmingham, Sheffield, and Glasgow, and I must honestly say I was impressed by the strength of the plea put forward not only by guardians and representatives of workers' associations, but also by leading employers and those responsible for local government. The plea was to the effect that every effort should be made to extend the provisions of the unemployment insurance scheme, particularly on the uncovenanted side, as generously as circumstances would permit. I will only mention, in this regard, two facts. First, the amount expended under the Unemployment Insurance Acts during the last 2½ years since the storm period commenced in November, 1920, has reached the colossal figure of £125,000,000. This vast expenditure has only been made possible on the one hand by the balance of £22,000,000 which was in the old fund, and, secondly, by borrowing up to £17,000,000. Bearing in mind the fact that the loan will be repaid when times become normal on a contributory basis and that the balance of £22,000,000 was also amassed by contribution, I think all three partners to this scheme may be proud of their respective shares of subscription, namely, the State, £33,000,000; the employers, 48,000,000; and the workers, £44,000,000.
As indicated in the White Paper, we shall be extending the liability for borrowing up to £22,000,000, or less if the figures drop, as I hope they will. That alone is no mean provision, and when that is coupled with the fact that out of a maximum of 50 weeks from 2nd November last to 17th October next, I have provided under this Bill a possible 44 weeks' benefit, I do not think anyone in his senses can suggest that the provision now being' made by the Insurance Fund to meet our grave industrial necessities is anything but a generous one. It is often urged upon me, especially by boards of guardians in England and by parish council's in Scotland, that the burden to be borne in this time of great industrial difficulty is largely, if not mainly, a natonal one. I submit that the generous provisions of this Bill give very material further assistance towards dealing with the terrible problem of unemployment on broad national lines, and to that extent will ease the heavy burden which is being
carried by the localities. I hope the local authorities, such as guardians and others, will not take it amiss if I make an appeal to them in return. In many areas the supplementary scales of relief given by guardians, in addition to unemployment benefit, reach a figure which is equivalent to, or not much less than, the standard rate of wage of unskilled labour in the district. In my view, it is clearly unsatisfactory that the payment of public money by way of relief should be on too high a scale, and I appeal to the guardians for their co-operation in this respect.
Lastly, a few words to the critics who say I am doing too much. I would first point to the provisions of the Bill itself. While there is a generous grant of uncovenanted benefit in the Bill, of 22 additional weeks until mid-October next, and 26 weeks for the first benefit year from mid-October next to October of the following year; yet a definite effort is made in the Bill to limit the grant of uncovenanted benefit so far as it seems prudent to do so, with a view to restoring the fund to its original position of a genuine insurance fund on the basis of covenanted benefit as soon as that can properly be attempted. For instance, to mention only one or two small points, during the first benefit year, as I have already indicated, uncovenanted benefit will not be continuous. Furthermore, though past contribution is still to be used as a test of genuine industrialism, it is to be on the basis of one contribution in six and not, as at present, one in three: or putting it technically, there will be, after mid-October next, a revival of contribution but without doubling. It will not be one in three as at present but one in six—the old original rule. Furthermore, in subsequent benefit years we hope it will be possible to get on without the provision of uncovenanted benefit.
I do not wish to repeat the very remarkable evidence which I outlined to the House only a fortnight ago, based on the experience of social workers all over the country, showing that the payment of benefits under the Insurance Act has proved a great boon and that it is the effective bridge which is carrying us over our present distress. In this connection I quoted the report of Toynbee Hall; the last edition of the book on "Poverty," by Mr. Seebohm Rowntree,
of York, and the address of Mr. Justice Greer, charging the grand jury at Liverpool, all substantially to the same effect. There is a recent and interesting volume called, "The Third Winter of Unemployment," with which the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dover (Major Astor) is honourably connected and the evidence in which points generally in the same direction. In that volume reports from social workers and trained inquirers in nine industrial districts, such as Cardiff, Glasgow, Manchester, Woolwich, and so on, are summarised and analysed, and the reports, particularly that from Glasgow, frankly surprise me. I cannot go into details with regard to them here, but let me conclude with one sentence, and one sentence only, from that very interesting volume. These are words relating to the Insurance Act, and they are words which I heartily endorse and which I believe the country will heartily endorse:
The effects of the Unemployment insurance scheme have been almost wholly good.
With these words I conclude what I have to say in putting this Bill before the House, and I now beg to move that it be given a Second Reading.

Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. Gentleman has laboured, not without much success, to make plain to the House many matters which are very complicated and very obscure, because of the multiplicity of Acts and Amendments and Regulations relating to the general law of unemployment insurance. The right hon. Gentleman will not mistake me when I say that there are still some matters which are not as clear to us on this side of the House' as I hope they will be made hereafter. It may be that only during the Committee stage can we deal effectively with the many details of the Clauses of this belated Measure. I am not going into the historical review to which the right hon. Gentleman treated the House in the opening part of his speech. I suggest to him, however, that the edifice erected in 1920, to which he referred, was not intended as, and certainly has not turned out to be, anything like a means of affording a remedy for existing conditions of unemployment. At best it has been no more than a provision of passing relief for the continuous state of idleness from which large numbers of workers are suffering. By pressure of circumstances, by outside
clamour, by deepening conditions of impoverishment and by appeals in this House, Governments have step by step been compelled to effect Amendments. Many of these have been belated concessions, and much human suffering would have been prevented if appeals made two or three years ago from this side of the House had been listened to favourably. Despite my right hon. Friend's usual optimism, I do not think he can find much consolation in the figures which he gave us as to there being, over a long period, only some 11,000 workers in continuous unemployment and suffering uninterrupted conditions of idleness. What we ought to take into account in relation to our experience of the past two years is the average duration of unemployment suffered by those who have been on the fund, not continuously, but nearly so. For certain it is that a very large proportion of the 1,300,000 still reported as being the total number unemployed must have been out of work for very long periods indeed.
5.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman classified his critics in two groups—those who complained he was doing too much and those who censured him for doing too little. May I make our position plain on this side of the House? We say that the Government, including the Minister of Labour, are not doing enough in respect of finding work, which could be found with great advantage to the workers themselves and with equal advantage to the State, and that enough is not being done to give adequate relief to those who are compelled to be idle, largely because the Government has not organised work as it. should have done. We therefore regard this latest Bill as a mere melancholy and disappointing approach to a problem which, as yet, the Government is not touching. If we are asked if we are disposed to reject this Bill, the answer is, that we are not. A vote for this Bill may well be given, because the law is now so bad that if the Bill were not passed, the position of the unemployed would soon be even worse than it is. But the Bill is not a reform. It is not in any real, effective degree, an improvement of the law of insurance. It is at most, and at best, a continuing Bill, and just, by the way it effects a few slight modifications or instances of betterment in the case of individuals or of one or two
groups of those who are now suffering. I am entitled, therefore, to contrast this Bill with the hopes constantly raised and the public professions used in the country by the representatives of the Government in relation to unemployment. Each one of these evasive proposals is certain to evoke the condemnation of those who were misled by the promises which spokesmen of the Government repeatedly made as to dealing with the problem of unemployment. One need go no further back than to the general terms of the Speech from the Throne with which our business in this Session was opened. In that Speech His Majesty is made to say:
The serious state of unemployment among My people causes Me the deepest concern, and must continuously engage the attention of My Ministers… effect will be given to the special measures which have been initiated to afford relief to the situation."
What special measures? In what way is full effect being given to any steps yet taken by the Government or contemplated by Ministers who are continuously engaged in giving their attention to this problem? Can my right hon. Friend hold out any prospect whatever of any legislation or any further administrative Ant which we may expect this year, during this Session of Parliament, which in the slightest degree will keep faith with the terms of the Speech from the Throne. I think I am entitled to ask what are the intentions behind all these vague sand general promises which raise the hopes of men and again break faith with them, as we have seen in the case of our experience of previous Sessions. Take, again, the case of the statement of the Prime Minister on the eve of the Election. These are the words of the present Prime Minister, spoken in Glasgow on 13th November last year:
If this Government lasted its ordinary term, whether he was at the head of it or not, he sincerely hoped that it would he possible to make further progress in the direction of making unemployment insurance a part of the trade burden of industry.
Did that speech merely mean that all that we were to get, at any rate this year, was such a, slender amendment of the Insurance Acts as this Bill now affords? I allege then that the Prime Minister raised these hopes before the Election, that in the Speech from the Throne those
hopes were sustained, that we were told Ministers were continuously engaged upon this problem, and that effective measures would be taken, and I ask: Is any step to be taken during this year which will keep faith with these official and solemn assurances which have been so often repeated? And what, by the way, has happened to the work of the numerous Cabinet Committees which have been labouring upon this question? I asked that question at the beginning of the Session. I got no answer, and I repeat: What product, if any, has yet come from the work of the Cabinet Committees dealing with this problem of unemployment, and when are we to get reports, and in what form, of anything which these Cabinet Committees have yet done?
I need say very little indeed on this Bill itself. As I have already indicated, it is a Bill which must receive the closest consideration in detail when it reaches its Committee stage, but I think it is time we had some complete and consistent piece of understandable legislation on this problem of unemployment insurance, and that, if we could not travel into the wider area of any effort to solve the problem itself by finding work, we might well have given the larger part of the time of this Session to dealing more amply with the problem than the present Bill proposes. We have in this Bill references which will be more or less—perhaps rather less than more—understood as to special periods, gaps, deficiency periods, covenanted and uncovenanted and other forms of benefit, and in the numerous figures of speech in the remarks of my right hon. Friend we had references to bridges and to many other devices, all meant to piece together this patchwork of legislation so far provided as a solution of the unemployment problem. I turn now to one or two Clauses of the Bill for the purpose of asking a definite question or two. I do not think my right hon. Friend is a man likely to abuse power, even though a large measure of it may be placed at his disposal, but no Minister in these days is certain of being in office for long, and therefore I cannot trust to the vagueness of the future, not knowing who might succeed my right hon. Friend in the condition of removals, I suppose, which in due course, perhaps even before long, may have to take place within the Ministry.
I find, turning to Clause 3, that in the second part of Sub-section (2) of that Clause we have this statement:
The Minister may from time to time, if he thinks fit, by Regulation direct that the benefit year shall begin or end on some date other than the date for which provision is made by this Sub-section, and so that any benefit year may be a greater or less period than twelve months, and for the purpose of meeting any change thereby effected in the benefit year, the Minister may with the consent of the Treasury make such corresponding variation as regards the number of weeks of benefit which may be received within any benefit year as appears to him to be proper.
Certainly, reading the words and endeavouring to understand the language for what it is, it does appear to me to place enormous powers, not merely for varying, but for terminating the rights of individual workmen under whatever other provision of this Bill there may be. Is there then anything which the right hon. Gentleman cannot do, if the terms of that Clause are passed in their present form? The gap, as we know it, has to all of us been a cause of intense soreness and, I think, justifiable complaint. The Bill does not wholly remove the gap. It may narrow it, but it still leaves a necessitous workman, who may have been living, existing, upon the slender resources of his unemployment pay, faced with a period when he may get nothing at all, when, indeed, he cannot get anything at all. I do not know what quite is the motive of the gaps, and previously I have asked the question: Are these gaps meant as a sort of corrective, or as an instrument of pressure to be exerted upon those who are suspected of not doing their best to secure work? If so, I think that is a refinement of cruelty to which this House ought not any longer to listen, for we have been assured by Ministers of Labour that within their knowledge, in the main, the vast majority of the men affected by this problem of unemployment are men willing to work, seeking it eagerly, and trying to find it, day by day and hour by hour.

Sir M. BARLOW: Hear, hear!

Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear!

Mr. CLYNES: And I want to put it to my right hon. Friend that they ought not to be penalised, in any way driven into a corner with complete starvation, as must be the case if these gaps are to be maintained. My right hon. Friend has done
something to make a little more clear to the public than previously has been the case the degree of State obligation in respect to this particular law, and perhaps my right hon. Friend the. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will, after a short time, see how little indeed the State has expended in connection with this great burden. I observed his alertness when he feared for a moment that some part of this Bill might get through which actually would be a cost to the State. I shall, therefore, try to give him some little consolation.

Sir F. BANBURY: My point was that the money which has been borrowed by the Fund has been borrowed from the State. My belief is—and I told the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour so two years ago—that he will never get the money back, that the Fund will always be insolvent, and so far I have been right and the right hon. Gentleman has been wrong. My point is that it comes from the State, because the State has advanced it, and will never get it back.

Mr. CLYNES: I do not know what might be the view of my right hon. Friend as to the State's power or duty and capacity for exacting its rights from its citizens, but I think in this matter the State might be trusted to see that the terms of this Bill and of previous Acts are fully complied with whenever a period of trade prosperity returns, and if a Government requires any sort of incentive, any kind of pressure, to that end, I am certain that the right hon. Baronet, if he is in the House in those years, will see that that is provided. But what has to be clearly understood is that this money of which we are now speaking as State money, is really not a gift from the State at all, but is a transference of money from the State to the Unemployment Fund. I think the figure given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour as to the total amount paid during all this long period of very serious trade depression really from the State purse was some £33,000,000. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of that sum is only about one-fourth of the amount which every year the Government raises by the Beer Tax alone, and that that tax is paid in the main out of the pockets of the working classes? I am putting it to the House that by the Beer Tax alone
four times as much is raised annually as the State has paid to the whole of the unemployed during this long period of sustained depression over a period of two years, and I think that that clearly shows that the State has fallen very short indeed of doing its duty in respect to any serious financial obligation.
I have seen, in a Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Labour, that eventually there is to be an enormous saving to the State, and, not merely for the benefit of those of us who are here, but for general enlightenment, I will ask the Minister for some more information on that point. I observe by the Press that some very misleading and evidently uninformed conclusions have been reached as to the meaning of this paragraph on page three of the Memorandum:
If the reduced rates of contribution are at the maximum rates permitted in the First Schedule to the Bill, the State contribution will be about £6,000,000 annually as compared with the present amount of about £12,500,000 annually; while the combined contributions from employers and employed will be annually £24,000,000 instead of the present figure of about £35,000,000.
What I am asking is, About when are the public to understand that they may expect that saving in the contribution 'of the State in relation to this law My right hon. Friend referred, towards the close of his speech, to the position of the education authorities in respect of a new phase of administration under the law of unemployment insurance. Such education authorities will have to assume duties in connection with the administration of the benefit claimed by any person under the age of 18, and, in the later part of the Clauses, there are provisions for returning to the education authorities certain moneys by way of covering the expenses which they will have to meet. What I want to ask is, whether we can be sure that a fair rate will be fixed, if authority is to be vested in the hands of the Minister of Labour, in consultation, of course, with the Treasury; and, secondly, that no rate will be fixed until the representatives of the education authorities have been consulted, and matters have been fully discussed between them. I put this question, because education authorities, I know, finding that their duties are to be increased, are naturally anxious to he fairly dealt with on the financial side of the new duties which they have to undertake.

Sir M. BARLOW: I would like to say at once that the local education authorities will be consulted.

Mr. CLYNES: I take it, then, that the education authorities will have to bend to any decision of the Government, if actually the Bill becomes law in its present terms before the consultation takes place. There is one part of this Bill which does not attempt to treat fairly, and to duty to, the part-time workers. The special instance of the docker has, I know, been covered. The fact of the matter is that, under our present law, a worker on short-time can receive less wages by his service in short periods of work than can a man, who is wholly unemployed for a week or a fortnight, receive in the form of benefit. Clearly that is not right, and it would seem to encourage idleness, and to incline men to call themselves out of work altogether. I think in Committee that is a feature of the Bill into which my right hon. Friend should thoroughly go, so as to remove this condition of inequality as to the part-time worker and the man wholly unemployed.
Finally, may I say a closing word on this subject of the Money Resolution, for I gathered, from the statement of the Labour Minister, that it was hoped to take the Money Resolution to-night. Of course, this is not a subject on which we want to offer anything in the nature of obstruction. We do not want to delay the Measure at any stage, but we are very much concerned as to the freedom of Members when they reach the Committee stage. It is probable that this Bill will have to be dealt with for very many days in Committee. I recall a previous experience with a similar Bill when the position of the Minister was that his hands were so tied by decisions of the House that he could not make Amendments, he could not accept Amendments, and he could not concede points, which, evidently, he was disposed favourably to consider in the light of the discussions that were then taking place. I ask for some assurance that if this Money Resolution be passed, we shall not be told in the Committee stage that an Amendment of certain financial aspects of this Bill—for instance, the amount or the proportion of the State payment—cannot be varied, because a Money Resolution has been passed by the House of Commons
binding the hands of the Committee not to make any alteration. This question of the Money Resolution is so important, raising, as I say, points, not only of our freedom, but of the freedom of the Minister when the Committee stage is reached, that on that subject I trust we shall have some assurance. I, therefore, leave the Bill by saying it is no remedy, but that, such as it is, we shall try to make it better, and in that, I trust, have the co-operation and support of Members on all sides of the House, who, like ourselves, made certain promises to the unemployed, who, at least, expressed whole-hearted sympathy with their miserable condition, and now is their opportunity for making good some of their statements at the General Election.

Dr. MACNAMARA: We are still struggling through the gloom of trade depression and unemployment, but the worst is behind us, and, undoubtedly, recovery will be painfully slow. Europe could not devote its man-power for four years and three months, and spend £50,000,000,000, upon the work of destruction without feeling the effects for a long time, and recovery is retarded by the fact that, even now, after this lapse of time, there are many, many millions of people not back again to normal output, and, therefore, not in the market with their demands, which our workpeople, to a large extent, met in the past.. Confronted with this situation, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour comes forward with a proposal for further extension of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. He has no other alternative, that is quite clear, and, in the main, the proposal he makes, if I may say so with respect, is one which I should have been compelled to make if I still held my commission. The last provision we made enacted that from the 2nd November last, there should be 22 weeks' benefit, carrying us over to the end of June next. For those who have been compelled, and are now compelled, to draw that benefit without intermission, the 22 weeks will expire on the 4th April, and I always contemplated that, unless things recovered very much more rapidly than there appeared any likelihood of their doing, we should have had to come here, if we had been the Government, and ask for the sort of extension which my right hon. Friend is proposing now. He proposes to com
mence a new period of benefit on the 19th April—[An HON. MEMBER: "To extend the old one!"]—or extend the old one. I am the last man to object to the use of that phrase. He proposes to extend the old benefit from the 19th April onwards, providing 22 weeks' uncovenanted benefit, that is to say, benefit paid in advance of contributions, and not after contributions, the emergency scheme for which I myself was responsible, for reasons which the present Minister of Labour has stated to the House to-day-22 weeks from the 19th April to the middle of October, or 26 weeks by the calendar.
That is not a bad provision, and I shall most certainly support it. I would remind the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) that when you are dealing with the unemployment insurance scheme, you are only dealing with one part of a many-sided endeavour which the State has made during the recent, and still continuing, trade depression to mitigate the problem of unemployment. £33,000,000 State contribution is by no means inclusive of the whole State contributions. The Insurance Act, I must insist, is really only one part of a many-sided endeavour. I can only incidentally refer to the matter now. Of course, the first duty, confronted as we are with this calamity, is to do all we can to revive and to develop trade, and the next duty, in pursuance of the work-finding policy, to assist the municipalities all we know to put in hand productive emergency relief works, and I do press upon my right hon. Friend the very grave necessity to pursue those several other endeavours with all activity and with every industry. Even when you have done everything you can in the way of finding work and stimulating trade by your several schemes, there will remain these large numbers of people, to whose help you must come by providing an extension of benefit under the Bill proposed to-day. I think it is a good provision, and I desire to say so. I was more glad than I can say to hear that the dependants' grant was going to be continued. I know my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends on my right have said some very bitter things about the 5s. a week additional to the unemployed man's benefit for his wife and the 1s. a week each for the little children. All I have to say is that, to my certain knowledge, that has proved
very timely and very helpful in lots of little families suffering the hardships of the enforced unemployment of the breadwinner, and I am very glad it is being continued.
I have some anxiety about one point in this Bill. I desire to press it upon my right hon. Friend. The provision we made from November last was 22 weeks' benefit, the first 12 absolutely un-covenanted, without previous contributions at all, because the poor people concerned could not make them, as they could not get work. The second two fives imposed not very onerous stamp qualifications. I introduced on the emergency side the contribution qualification deliberately, because I wanted to get back, slowly, of course, but nevertheless permanently, to the old established form of insurance, under which benefit is paid in respect of contributions made, as soon as I could. Recovery has been so delayed that a considerable number of people, having drawn their 12 weeks since the 2nd November last, wholly un-covenanted benefit, found themselves unable to bring any qualifications forward in respect of the second two fives of the total 22. These people ran out of benefit entirely on the 24th January. It is a very hard case. My right hon. Friend considered that by the time we get to the 19th April there will be 150,000. I think that 100,000—the second figure he gave—will be probably nearer the mark. That is rather a serious figure. The 11,000, increasing week by week, have already been out of benefit six weeks up to now, and will be out 12 weeks by the 19th April. I wish my right hon. Friend would look at that, so as to try, if possible, to bring the date of the commencement of the new period of benefit, or the extension of the old, forward a little earlier, because by that time a good many will have been out of benefit for 12 weeks. By that time 100,000 will be out of benefit, many having been off for 11, 10, nine and so on number of weeks. I do press upon my right hon. Friend the suggestion that the way to meet these rather hard cases, this pressing and particular claim upon us, is to bring forward the date, if it is at all administratively possible, a little earlier than 19th April, the date of the commencement of the new period of benefit. I should like to have an answer in respect of that point. My
right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) will be glad to hear that the cost will not be excessive in dealing with the new charge. It will mean that we will borrow a little more rapidly than otherwise we should do. He will, in particular, be glad to hear that already after this long time we are not much past half the borrowing powers which the House of Commons gave me. I am quite sure the right hon. Baronet will take some comfort from that.

Sir F. BANBURY: It may have been that the powers asked for were excessive!

Dr. MACNAMARA: If that be so, what, was the right hon Baronet about to allow the House of Commons to give borrowing powers which were excessive? He must have been singularly failing in his duty. However, I think he may take comfort—I am sure he does—from the fact that after this long time only £17,000,000 of the money, roughly, which is not much more than half of the total borrowing powers which I had to ask for so long ago, has been borrowed. I expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has spent sleepless nights of late—

Sir M. BARLOW: Yes!

Dr. MACNAMARA: —no one in his office can avoid that—considering the demand that for this benefit, week by week, the country should get something in return. It was mentioned once more by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) when he said it was "work and not doles" that was wanted, as the phrase goes. That is the demand upon everybody's lips, and upon no lip is it more honestly uttered than upon the lips of the great bulk of the people now suffering from unemployment. Directly the slump began 2½ years ago the point was pressed upon me by those responsible for private industrial concerns. They came to me and said, "If you will only allow this 15s. a week benefit to go as a contribution to wages." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am telling my Labour friends what they came to me and said I have not commented upon it, though I will do so—if I get the opportunity! The employers said to me, "If you will only let this 15s. to go as a contribution to wages, then we can keep our concerns going; hard times are upon us, and we can keep going if you do so."
That struck me as a very tempting proposition. No one, however, who has carefully read the agricultural history of this country round about the time of the Napoleonic Wars but will remember what resulted from wages being subsidised, nor will he take such a proposition as that very lightly. Therefore, from the very first, though I heard it almost daily, I set it aside. You could not take this benefit however much you would wish for service in return, even for the sake of the men themselves. There is no demoralisation like being out of work. The acceptance of the dole is not demoralising. It is the being out of work. You could not take the benefit and use it in subsidising wages.
Later—and I am glad to see the Postmaster-General present—the matter was put in a narrower form. It was pressed upon me by a number of municipalities, and particularly by the municipality of Birmingham, and my right hon. Friend is now Postmaster-General. They said: "Why not take this 15s. per week benefit, and let it go towards the wage of the men not in industry generally"—not at all. The much narrower lines on which the municipalities put forward the suggestion was where they were taking up and putting into hand for the relief of unemployment emergency relief work, which they would not have considered it expedient to do if there had been no emergency. That was the proposition urged upon me. It was a proposition which certainly did not involve all the dangers of the wider proposition, which had definitely turned down. I am sure my right hon. Friend will carefully consider the matter. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea? "] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond) is quite able to speak for himself. But I always kept a more or less open mind upon this narrower proposition, which was: You take the 15s. and you say to the municipalities in respect to emergency relief work: "Why should you not put in hand work, and, in the case of the emergency work imposing a heavy burden upon the municipality, we will invite the men to let the 15s. go as part of their wage." That proposition, I say, I kept a more or less open mind upon, although I saw it had difficulties. Inasmuch, however, as my right hon. Friend is likely to have it
pressed upon him from influential quarters, I should like to have a word or two on the question, because the difficulties are not inconsiderable.
The matter has been examined officially —once at my instance—by a Cabinet Unemployment (Inter-Departmental) Committee, and twice turned down, and it has often been before the Cabinet Unemployment Committee. It would have this great advantage, that it would give men now simply drawing unemployment benefit, and who have been unemployed for a long long time, through no fault of their own, the chance to begin to shake themselves down to regular day-to-day employment, and that would be a very real advantage; for, as I say, it is not demoralising to accept what is contumeliously called the dole—that is not the demoralisation. This lies in getting out of the habit of regular occupation. We must not forget, however, that the benefit of the Insurance Act is frankly for the unemployed man. I call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting to this—that not for the first time—though he did not use the term to-day—he has called the unemployment benefit waste, It is a benefit which is frankly provided by a contributory system for the man who is out of work. It is just like the trade union out-of-work pay. In neither case is there service rendered in return, but there is not a Member on these Benches who can say it is waste. [An HON. MEMBER: "The men pay for it!"] Certainly they do, and let me remind hon. Members above the Gangway that the men pay for this, too. Therefore, do as we would wish by a system which will help the man to get into regular employment, we cannot take this—it would be rather unwise on the whole to take this—and use it as a subsidy for wages even on the narrower basis. For those who get the benefit on the un-covenanted side have already paid their quota, and those who have not will pay their quota when they get into work. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City that the contributions are being kept up and will be on the very high level of 9d. a week for men and 10d. for the employer, and will he so continued until the debt has been liquidated. I am quite sure he will take further comfort in that fact. But I do
seriously suggest that if you begin to pull this about, you will probably stand the risk of smashing it up altogether. Some people would not mind that. There are some who openly do not want a contributory scheme. Some of them are on my right above the Gangway. They frankly tell us so. [HON, MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] They frankly say so, and always have done. They want a noncontributory scheme, the "maintenance" which my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting talks about, and that is State maintenance. Those who do not want that had much better let this State contributory scheme alone. For that and other reasons I would ask those who want this, particularly the Postmaster-General, who urges it upon me with so much eloquence on the narrower basis, to look very carefully at the matter before we go in for it.
There are a couple of other things that might very well happen. So far from increasing the number of men at work—which we are all after, certainly—we should simply be paying for the wages of those who would be at work in any case by drawing upon the insurance funds. That is not satisfactory. There is a much more serious difficulty than that. How do we know that preference will not always be given to the man who can come forward with the lbs. contribution to his wage, so that the man "down and out" altogether, who has exhausted his right, is left worse off than ever! There are historical precedents for viewing the matter from this aspect, for that is exactly what happened to the agricultural labourers drawing Poor Law relief 100 years ago. I think on the whole, though there is much to be said for it, and we shall doubtless hear a good deal about it, we will do well to leave it alone. The way to deal with this problem is this: to increase the amount of State assistance that is given to the municipalities for putting relief work in hand, for they have done admirably, and the more they do the heavier the burden upon the rates. The right way to tackle this and to increase the opportunities for the amount of work, is to say to the municipality: "The more you do the more difficulty you find in the new schemes, but if you will put forward new schemes we will treat you rather more generously." I think it is far better to do that than follow many suggestions that do not seem helpful.
I was rather surprised that my right hon. Friend the Minister did not deal with what is known as the trade dispute disqualification. From the very first discussions when unemployment insurance was Part II of the National Insurance Scheme of 1911, this matter has been continuously before us. The Clause as it left discussion in 1911 is the form in which it now stands in the Act of 1920. Clause 8 (1) of the Act of 1920 says:
An insured contributor who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at the factory, workshop, or other premises at which he was employed, shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues, except in a case where he has during the stoppage of work become bonâ fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows or has become regularly engaged in some other occupation.
Where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate businesses in separate premises are in any case carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purpose of this provision, be deemed to he a separate factory or workship or separate premises as the case may be.
I do not deny—I never have denied—that cases of hardship may arise under that provision, and particularly with regard to the labourers who are thrown out of employment in the case of a dispute between, say, a craft union and an employer to which they are not directly parties, but from the effects of which they suffer so far as the trade dispute disqualification is concerned. I have never denied the difficulty of finding an equitable solution. The difficulty is formidable. I have said so many times in this House and in Committee upstairs. I have also said that if, say, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting and the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir Allan Smith) were to get together, the latter representing the employers and the former representing the workmen, and agree upon a solution, if it was at all administratively possible, we would give it every consideration. But I never had any plan submitted to me. In June of last year I appointed a strong Committee of which the Chairman was Sir Thomas Munro, with three Members of this House amongst the membership to look at this trade disqualification Clause which stands still as it did then, "and to consider whether any, and, if so, what, modification should be made there
in." I want my right hon. Friend to tell us about that. I am surprised he did not mention it. It is rather an acute thing. I imagine we are up against a very tough proposition. I do not for a moment suppose they have yet reported. I feel a certain sense of responsibility in the matter. Therefore I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will tell me how the thing is going on.
Finally, if I may urge it, let me say that this Bill makes provision for the continuation of unemployment benefit beyond October, 1923, and for the year following. I should like to look at that question for a moment. It is a good thing to make assurance doubly sure. When I was in office I was always haunted by anxiety that my provision might peter out at a time when the House of Commons was not sitting. I make no objection to this scheme providing for a continuance of this sort of provision up to October, 1923, and onwards to 1924 in the first case as a standby, but much more than that will have to be done in the meantime, for that is not enough. I do commend this to the Government with all the earnestness I can command and with every emphasis because you cannot leave the matter there. After all, this is largely an emergency provision. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) is quite right in the contention which he put forward that this is not the last word in provision for unemployment. The provision which this Bill makes is not enough and the Government will have to look at that provision again.
Although I agree that this is the best thing to do, it is by no means enough. I think the Cabinet Unemployment Committee should be charged at once to review the experiences of the last two-and-a-half years. They are very valuable in regard to mitigation, palliation and remedies for unemployment, but they should prepare permanent plans for the future. I shall be asked, "Why did you not do it?" I admit that is an obvious comment, but all I have to say is, we did it to a very large extent, and, after all the problem on my hands was pretty overwhelming because of the numbers, and there was little opportunity of planning for the permanent future, but as the situation eases, opportunity to do so opens out. I take my right hon. Friend at his
word regarding the necessity of looking ahead. He took some sort of credit for making provision beyond October, 1923, and he said that he was not one who would go from hand to mouth in this matter. I do not call it looking ahead when it is merely proposed to continue an emergency provision, and much more will have to be done. The permanent post-War unemployment problem is going to be larger and different in character from the unemployment problem before the War. You are now going to have in addition hundreds of thousands of hardy and vigorous young men among the unemployed as a result of the turmoil of the War.
The Committee which I have in mind should press for all it is worth on their behalf the Empire Settlement Act while yet there is time. In the next place, efforts ought to be made to provide continuity of employment, and that should be our first and main object. The second problem would be the finding of the necessary financial assistance and Parliamentary powers ought to be obtained, if necessary. The provision of money, vital as it is, must more and more be viewed as a less satisfactory second best. Many great public utility schemes are merely in the air. We did a great deal in that direction, but much more is possible in consultation with the municipalities. They have to look ahead, not only in regard to getting public utility schemes ready for when a cycle of depression comes again, but they ought to he now considering the time and method of placing Government and municipal contracts.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The right hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the Debate, and his remarks must be relevant to insurance.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will come back to the Insurance Act. There ought to be an examination of this problem with a view of substituting something more permanent. The whole question of insurance by industries ought to be thoroughly examined much more closely. It is a very attractive proposition because, if an industry is responsible for its unemployment, manifestly it will use every power that is humanly possible to prevent unemployment. If you set up a Committee
under some local administration, then it will be done by voluntary agencies, and it will be much cheaper than if it is being done by official agencies. I admit it is an attractive proposition, but it is not easy to carry out, and certainly the last word has not been said upon it yet.
There is another alternative provision in the Act which is worth considering. It is an alternative under which joint industrial councils or associations consisting of workmen and employers in any industry may submit a scheme to supplementing the minimum provision of the State Insurance Act. I am not sure that that is not a better scheme, and if it were made compulsory on groups of industries it might be better than the other form. Those are things which might be looked at by the Committee which I have suggested. When the Act of 1920 came into operation we ran into very heavy weather, and for this reason these schemes were held up. They should be examined afresh. Such a Committee as I contemplate ought to consider whether in the smaller industrial areas at any rate it would not be possible to administer unemployment insurance by voluntary agencies rather than by official establishments. If you had a local committee of employers and employed, I am pretty sure in the smaller areas they could keep as good a check on the administration of unemployment insurance as is now done by the most admirable, loyal and faithful servants of the Ministry of Labour, and in that way you could save a good deal of money which is now being spent on the official side.
In October, 1923, things may not be sufficiently recovered to enable you to put all these things in operation. It may be that when you come to the beginning of Session 1924 things may have got so near normal that a permanent and not emergency scheme would be far more desirable and preferable to put down in place of this temporary provision. I wish to press upon the Minister of Labour that he cannot get off by merely writing in a Bill, "We are going on until 1924." You want to have something ready and, if we reach the normal state in 1924, it would be better to have a scheme ready instead of waiting until that time and then appointing a Committee. After all this is largely an emergency scheme, and no one would claim more for it. We have had two and a half years' experience of these questions.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting is quite right when he says we ought to look more closely into this matter. I ask the Minister not to leave the matter with a mere provision for continuing up to October, 1923.
As regards the immediate future and its needs, broadly, my right hon. Friend in this Bill has done precisely what anybody else would have been compelled to do, confronted with the situation now before him. I have suggested one or two points for his consideration. I particularly press the point that, while it is quite right to make provision from October, 1923, onwards, along the line of the present scheme, that is not enough. We have to take time by the forelock and be ready with permanent plans. We not only desire to mitigate the present hardships of unemployment, as this Bill does, but we want to have ready plans for development on a much larger scale, schemes of work which will reduce the proportion of those people who, in a cycle of depression, are forced to spend their days in idleness through no fault of their own, and such protracted idleness is demoralising.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman who just sat down said that, owing to the state of Europe, this unfortunate unemployment will continue for some length of time. That is not the point of view which the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) has taken in the discussions I have had with him for some time. He always looked upon this as an emergency question, which would soon right itself. I have had considerable experience of insurance schemes, and everybody is always most hopeful about them, but they are generally wrong. The bottom generally falls out of such schemes and they become insolvent. The State has advanced £18,500,000 under these Acts and probably within three or four years it will advance £20,000,000. We are told that we are going to get it back again, but we cannot get it back unless unemployment stops and then we can only get it back by the contributions of those who are employed. We all hope that unemployment will stop and that everybody will be employed, although I confess that I do not see much hope of it at the present time But presuming for a moment that I am wrong and that everybody will be employed, they will begin to say, "It is likely that we shall not be
unemployed again, and I do not want to pay contributions every year."
6.0 P.M.
There are a large number of working men who do not pay contributions under the last Act. The railwaymen practically refused to pay the contribution, though unemployment was going on at the time. Human nature being what it is, is it not pretty certain that when everybody is in employment they will not want to make a fairly large contribution out of their wages? Therefore I think I was justified in asking the Ministry of Labour what the new contribution from the State would be, and whether it would be in the form of a loan or a larger contribution. The Minister told me that he did not know, and that he had not got the figures, and I think that is a rather bad admission to make. Surely in a ease of this sort we ought to know the amount of money which we are going to commit ourselves to and what liability we are incurring. The right hon. Gentleman said that, after all, the receiving of the benefit was not altogether the worst part of this scheme, but that a number of people were getting accustomed to being out of work. If I may say so, I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is a very dangerous thing. I cannot help thinking, human nature being what it is, that while the vast majority of people out of work a short time ago were anxious to get work, now a certain number, a small minority I hope, have become so accustomed to doing nothing, and to receive payment for doing nothing, that they will find it very difficult to take to work again. That is one of the great difficulties we are suffering from at the present moment. I hope my hon. Friend who is representing the Minister of Labour will be able to get information with regard to the bridging scheme. The Bill is very unintelligible. I cannot make head or tail of it. What I want to know is, what is going to happen under this bridging scheme? Do I understand rightly that what it means is this: Supposing an employer has in his factory 100 men. Suppose they are working half-time, would it be possible for 50 men to work three days a week and then receive unemployment benefit for three days, while the other 50 men go on in the factory? Is that what is contemplated? If so, it amounts to subsidising wages, a practice which was
found to be very fatal after the Napoleonic War at the beginning of the last century.
The fact is we have got to be a little hard-hearted at the present moment. Unless we are, we shall find ourselves in the same position as when the new Poor Law was brought into operation. You cannot get over human nature. All classes do exactly the same. Nothing could be more fatal than to have a small income sufficient to enable one to live without working. If a man is compelled to get a job he will probably be a much better citizen. We have to make people understand that they are compelled to work, and that if they do not work they will have a very bad time. There are a great number of people who are living, according to their lights, in a quite comfortable way, and who would prefer to continue living like that sooner than go to work. I hope the points I have raised will be submitted to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I repeat I do not pretend to understand the Bill. It is very complicated, but I trust the Government will not in any way encourage the subsidisation of wages, or encourage men to go to work for two or three days and then get the unemployment benefit for another two or three days. There are a certain number of people who can get work but do not choose to take it. There are any number of women who could go into domestic service and will not do it. We really must be careful in drafting Bills of this nature to see that advantage cannot be taken of the methods which to-day are necessary for ensuring some alleviation of the present unemployment.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: We shall agree that the Bill, so far as it goes, is useful. Our complaint on this side is that it does not go far enough. I was disappointed with the speech of the Minister, not so much with what he said, but by reason of what he omitted to say with regard to the larger provisions which must necessarily follow this Bill at a later date. This is a purely emergency Measure. I believe it is the seventh or eighth Unemployment Insurance Bill which has been brought before this House in the last four years. We realise how, right through the chapter, we have dealt with this problem in a piecemeal manner, dealing with each emergency as it arose
without any really sound plan to cope with it as an international or a national problem. With regard to the first part of the Bill, which is merely of a temporary nature, I want to ask about this question of the gap. We have a large number of people falling out of work owing to a special period coming to an end. The right hon. Gentleman says you must have a gap. It seems to me that the gap is rather an obsession of the Minister of Labour. I asked him, "What is the virtue of the gap?" and he seemed to indicate that he would answer that at some other time. I presume the gap was put in the original Insurance Bill as a corrective, or as a matter of discipline, or, possibly, on the grounds of finance. But surely, when people have been out of work for 12 or 18 months, they do not want more discipline. It is not much comfort to tell them that after a few weeks they will get their unemployment benefit again.
If it is a question of finance, I submit, with all respect, that this whole question of insurance requires to be dealt with on a sound financial footing. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that £18,000,000 have been lent in aid and that £22,000,000 have been obtained by raiding the funds contributed under the old Acts by 4,000,000 of insured people and distributing them among the 12,000,000 insured under the present Act. If we want to put insurance on a sound basis, we must deal with this £18,000,000 loan and 22,000,000 raided from the old fund as a national contribution towards a national emergency. If you are going to keep it as a millstone around the neck of the insurance scheme, you will never get any reserve fund at all in order to deal with the matter on broad lines, because as soon as the deficiency has been wiped out you will get another spell of unemployment, and you will never be on a sound basis. You will never be able to deal with the question on really satisfactory lines. If a gap is necessary in some districts, it is uncalled for in others. You have a small reduction in the amount of unemployment. On the average for the whole country it is from 12 to 13 per cent., but according to the "Labour Gazette" of February, the amount of unemployment in January was 42 per cent. in the shipbuilding industry on the north-east coast and 23 per cent. in the engineering industry. Therefore, you have unemploy
meat so excessive that it is quite impossible for the local authorities to supplement this gap. That is what, it means; the men cannot starve. You are throwing these people on to the local rates.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that he had dealt with this question in a generous way. It seemed to me that the arguments he used devoured themselves. He said in reply to one set of critics who told him that he was not dealing with the matter generously enough. "Look at what the nation has done. It has treated this as a national problem, and has contributed £33,000,000; and then he turned round to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and said, "This is only a loan; it is coming out of the Insurance Fund, and it will be paid back by the contributions of employers and employed." Instead of treating this great question out of national resources the right hon. Gentleman is mortgaging the future of the Insurance Fund, and the State is doing in fact very little to solve the problem. The right hon. Gentleman referred to an interesting Report dealing with unemployment by a committee of business men and economists who had investigated the question. I should like to direct his attention to some of the findings of that Report. The committee said the State had treated very hardly certain localities and industries in this matter. They referred to the fact that unemployment is largely outside the control of industry, and that during the War the heavy iron and steel industries had to increase their plant, and that labour was brought from various districts into the industrial towns to engage in these particular industries at the invitation of the Government. Then the slump came, and what happened? Owing to the shortage of houses due to the dropping of building at the Government command during the War the labour which had been drafted into the towns—into the iron and steel industries—was unable to get back to the districts from which it came, and was left on the hands of the locality to which it did not belong and which had really no responsibility for it. These localities were saddled with maintaining that labour—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have great sympathy with the arguments of the hon.
Gentleman, but I think he should necessarily connect them with insurance.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I was trying to show the reason why we should not have this gap was because labour, for the reasons I was indicating, had gone into certain industrial areas, and that when it was thrown out of benefit by the gap period labour would have to look to the local guardians and the charge would fall on the rates of these industrial areas during that period. However, I will not pursue that matter further, except to say that the burden on these necessitous areas is getting to breaking point. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a deputation was to wait on him this week to seek assistance in this distress and emergency, and they will be grievously disappointed that, instead of receiving any relief or hope or encouragement, they are to receive an added charge upon their rates in order to relieve the right hon. Gentleman and his fund of expenses which properly should be his. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter. What purpose is there in the gap? In the case, say, of a shipyard worker who has been out of work through no fault of his own for 12 or 18 months, you tell him that, for the sake of discipline, or finance, or for some other reason, he is to have two weeks of no benefit, two weeks when he must go to the guardians or starve, because his trade union funds and his private resources are exhausted. It is unfair to the locality and unfair to the industry to impose such a burden, which is, indeed, a national burden, and should be met on national lines.
I hope that in Committee the Minister may be willing to meet the demand of these necessitous areas, whose rates are mounting up from 20s. to 30s. in the £. I had an interview only on Saturday with the chairman of the board of guardians in my district. He said that things are getting beyond breaking point, that they had loans amounting to £280,000 and were seeking more loans, that their rates were over 20s. in the £, and that there would be an added burden if this gap period were insisted upon, so that those who, through no fault of their own, were out of work were compelled to go to the guardians. Moreover, once a man, who has kept up his independence hitherto, gets into the habit
of going to the guardians, there is not the same hesitation next time. We want to make it easy for a. man to keep away from applying for Poor Law relief. They do not want to do it, but by this gap period you are compelling them, and in the end it will be an extra charge on the public purse. Whether it comes from the National Exchequer or from the local rates, it is still a burden on the public purse, and it is not sound economy to seek to save expense to the one by making a bigger charge on the other. I should like also to ask whether it will not be possible in Committee to remove some of the restrictions which in the past have made it difficult to get benefit as quickly as possible. I am aware that Clause 5, which deals with the continuous period, is a great advantage and is some concession, and I know that the officials of the Ministry of Labour are most anxious and willing to give assistance to those who come to them. The experience in my own town is general that the officials do all in their power in every case. They are, however, held up sometimes by red tape, by restrictions, by delay at headquarters. I hope it may be possible to sweep away some of these difficulties which hinder the prompt payment of benefit, which add, to the evil of unemployment, the distress caused by deferred payment, again sending those to the guardians who really ought to be kept on the Insurance Fund.
With regard to the future, I hope that, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) has suggested, the Government may realise that it is time a broad view was taken of the matter, and that something of a permanent nature was done. We are all agreed that the old laissez faire? policy must go. You cannot leave things as they are. Not only do we not want to go back to the pre-War standard, but we want something better. We want to realise the collective responsibility of the community jointly with industry for those who fall by the way. It used to be said overseas on active service that it was the first sign of demoralisation in an army when it ceased to care for its casualties; and in the industrial world it is a sign of demoralisation if the community and the industries are unable to carry their casualties on the strength, and unable to provide for them when, through
no fault of their own, they fall victims. No one suggests to-day that it is a question of Tired Tims or Weary Willies. That is a cry of the past. We realise that these men are out of work through no fault of their own, and I submit that we must realise our full responsibility, and not merely provide for the 26 weeks. I am sorry to see that in the more permanent part of this Bill the Government are cutting down the period of benefit. Surely, if a man is out of work through no fault of his own, he should receive benefit for the whole period and on an adequate scale. Instead of that, the Government are suggesting cutting down the period and cutting down the State contribution. I hope that both will be resisted to the full. We want a. higher conception of the responsibility of the community to those who suffer through no fault of their own.
It has been said that if you do this you will ruin industry, but that cry has been raised whenever any improvement has been put forward in the industrial world. If you go back to the first introduction of the Factory Laws, you will remember how the Lancashire cotton industry was up in arms when it was suggested that they should not be allowed to take little children from their beds and employ them in their mills; and what did the great prophet of those days, Thomas Carlyle, say? He said: "Better perish the industry than carry on taking the Devil into partnership." I am certain that many of us to-day would say that those industries which cannot carry the burden of their own unemployment had better perish than carry on at the expense of the tragedy and suffering we have known in recent years. This proposition is not an impossible one. Statistics show that during the last 20 years or so, in those industries in which unemployment is most fluctuating, there has not been an average of more than 10 per cent. unemployed, and, excluding the War years—which involve an entirely abnormal problem—and taking ordinary industry, the average will be a little more than 6 per cent. out of employment. If we only paid them half wages—and that is more than is paid' at present—for the whole time they are unemployed, it would only mean an extra 3 per cent. on the wages bill, and if that were divided between the State, the employers and the employed, the burden would be very little more than
at the present time; but you would have a comprehensive scheme which would enable those who through no fault of their own were thrown out of work to have adequate maintenance.
We have to strive for a higher standard and a higher ideal. In ordinary industries and business to-day, the commercial man provides a reserve fund in good years in order that the various interests concerned in his business shall be protected in lean years. Rent is guaranteed to the landlord, mortgage interest is guaranteed to the capitalist, machinery and plant are kept in as fit condition when trade is slack as when trade is good; even the pit ponies are tended, watered and fed whether the mine is working or not. Surely, what it is sound to do in business for the other factors of production is equally sound for the human factor. We cannot go back; we must have higher ideals. Now is the time for the Government to draw up a large scheme which would help to remove those evils of industry which have been so rampant in the past—evils which are doing more to undermine the stability of the country than anything else. Many of us believe that they are not the necessary accompaniments of private enterprise. Private enterprise can remove these excrescences, and if private enterprise is to exist and carry on it is necessary that that should be done. I suggest that the Government might see whether these various insurance schemes, which have grown up in a haphazard way, cannot all be combined in, as it were, an "all-in policy "covering old age pensions, unemployment insurance, health insurance, and workmen's compensation. All these have grown up in a haphazard way, and if they could be combined and united in one joint scheme economy could be effected on machinery. I do not believe in the cry that the State is necessarily more expensive than the private individual in doing these things. In fact, a Return which was presented only the other day by the Home Office, showing the costs to the employers of workmen's compensation, showed that of every £100 paid by the employer only £35 goes to the workmen in compensation, £65 going in profits and expenses to the company, whereas, under the insurance scheme the costs are only about 12½ per cent. I appeal to the Government to deal with this question on comprehensive lines, so
that Parliament, which in the past has secured for us political and religious liberties, may now secure for us that economic liberty which will enable us to remove the dread effect of unemployment in our industries.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY: The Minister of Labour, in the concluding portion of his speech, referred to a publication which has also been mentioned by speakers on the other side of the House, "The Third Winter of Unemployment." He mentioned it as if it were proof 'a favour of the Measure which is now before the House, but evidently he had not read the whole of it, because that publication lays the greatest stress on the danger of mixing up insurance with relief. I rather agree with some previous speakers who have said that this is practically only a patchwork Measure, and that there is no finality about it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that it would be better if we could consolidate all the Measures dealing with public assistance, and arrive at some degree of finality. I think that the present Bill is a mistake as regards the manner in which questions of relief and insurance are mixed up in its drafting. We all realise that under present conditions it is almost impossible to create an insurance scheme that is perfectly sound actuarially, but I think it is unfortunate that the needs of the moment have been mixed up with the word "insurance," because insurance can only moan a contributory scheme which truly apportions the benefit to the contributions which have been paid. Any departure from that is fraught with danger and mischievous, because it leads the public to believe that the substitution of insurance by relief will be the normal procedure in the future.
Under the present system, and under the system which will be continued by this Measure, the insurance money and the relief will be inextricably mixed up. There will be overlapping, and that means that the moneys provided by Parliament and by the ratepayers will not be efficiently and properly used. The Bill commences by prolonging what is called the un-covenanted period, and the un-covenanted period is purely a euphemism for relief and nothing else. The Bill then proceeds to say, with pious hope, that by
the middle of October, 1924, the scheme will be financially and actuarially sound. I should have thought that a Financial Resolution would have been necessary before the Second Reading of this Bill, as the Bill is so mixed up with finance, but I understand that that was not the case. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and also with another hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House, that this large sum of money which has been borrowed is not likely to be paid back, and that it will remain a charge against the taxpayer of the country. We have to look facts in the face, and while the Bill is supposed to be actuarially sound, you will undoubtedly be overloading the unfortunate contributor after 24th October with a debt, causing him to pay contributions in order to give benefits to people who have been unemployed all along. That seems to me to be difficult to justify, and I am not at all sure that it will not in the end be necessary for us to cut our loss and start a scheme actuarially sound when it is possible to do so. Of course, even in a normal period you can never hope to do away with unemployment entirely. You will never do away with it under Socialism or any other system under which the people may live. There will always be a certain number of unemployed, and it is for that very reason that you want an efficient insurance scheme against unemployment on a basis which is actuarially sound and which is not mixed up in any way with relief. We are entitled to know what the cost of the scheme will be to the State as well as what will be be added to the insurance fund. It is very awkward to fix a date like 17th or 24th October as the commencement of the financial year. It would have been far better that the year should commence either at the beginning of the financial year, as we understand it, or else on let January, as it is more generally understood by the people of the country.
It is on the question of the gap where you have overlapping with the guardians. I cannot help thinking there should be a general register of all those who are receiving relief, whether it is in un-covenanted benefit or from the guardians or from any other source, in order to give some general idea as to the maximum
and minimum amount which should be paid. I may be accused of suggesting too great centralisation and giving too great power to the Ministry, but some authorities may give too little and some may give too much, and I cannot help thinking that there should be a register available to the public and to the Ministry, giving all those in receipt either of un-covenanted benefit or of relief. I should like to make a protest against the manner in which the financial memoranda are issued. What is the good of giving financial memoranda five minutes before we come into the House. With a document like this, which gives a considerable amount of detail, which cannot be digested during Question Time, it should not be beyond the means of the Ministry of Labour to allow us to have a proper opporunity of reading the financial provisions instead of having to get it from the Vote Office when we come down.
I should like to say a word about the hope of a permanent scheme for dealing with this question. I hope the hon. Member opposite, who dealt with this matter to some extent in a critical but certainly not in a constructive way, will use what influence he has—I am sure it is very great—with the Trade Union Congress to issue their report on insurance by industry. My own opinion is, that the question ought to be thoroughly probed to the bottom. It seems to me that by this means you will obtain greater economy, efficiency and co-operation between employers and employed, because it is to their interest to keep unemployment down as far as possible. I hope the report from the employers and from the employés side may be available in the very near future. I am not certain, in my own mind, whether Clause 10 permits contracting out of the scheme or not. My impression is, that in the Bill of 1920 provision was made for contracting out in the case of schemes which provided similar or better benefits, but, subsequently, owing to the insolvency of the Act, the power to contract out was taken away, with the exception, I believe, of the railways, who contracted themselves out because they had no alternative scheme at all, and simply resisted payment because they arc unlikely to be in need of unemployed benefit. It seems to me to be of doubtful wisdom for the Government to allow even a powerful body of men like the railwaymen to remain out
of insurance and, at the same time, to insist on people who are not so strongly organised remaining in.
It seems to me that sooner or later you will have to bring the whole of industry into insurance. It has gradually been increased. It began with small beginnings and was applied to certain trades. Gradually the numbers have increased until they are now, I think, over 12,000,000. I cannot help thinking that sooner or later you will have to bring in all those engaged in manual or clerical labour up to the figure of £300 or £400 a year, and that is why I want to see a comprehensive scheme. There are several schemes which ought to be examined. There are proposals, for instance, that there should be what amounts to a tax on wages in order to supplement the fixed amount paid by the State and by employers. Whether that is practicable or not I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) said it was very difficult to find a water-tight scheme which would be free from criticism. We can only do our best in endeavouring to find a scheme which will be of the greatest benefit to those who are unemployed. There should be first of all a clear-cut division between insurance and relief, there should be a general register for all who are in receipt of relief of any kind, and I hope that insurance by industry will be found possible and that contracting out may again be permitted. I am sure we all recognise, irrespective of party, the great difficulty with which the Minister is faced at present. I cannot help thinking that the scheme we are now considering can only be regarded as a temporary makeshift.

Mr. HAYDAY: Before getting to the main points on which I am in entire disagreement with the Bill, I should like to make one or two observations upon the points put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, All through this Debate there has run the theme, "You must see that you are actuarially sound and separate relief from unemployment benefit, and you must have organisation by industry." Those two points at once clash. You cannot have both those points and at the same time have an actuarially sound Unemployment Act. I am opposed to the theory of insurance by industry for
the simple reason that you would take the best industries with the lowest percentage of unemployment and contract them out of the scheme and leave the residue of casually and seasonally employed and the general mass of labourers in the various industries, and to make such a scheme as would provide adequate benefit for that residue you would have to take 25 per cent. of their wages, while taking out of the scheme those who would only be called upon to pay about 25 per cent. of the present rate of contribution. One must fully realise what is meant by a scheme of national unemployment insurance, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to keep in his mind the fact that the Government of the day in 1920, in order to get out of its own direct responsibilities in the winter of that year, with a large number of unemployed, extended the old Act to embrace eight millions who had never had an opportunity of contributing anything at all to the Fund, and the Government took the £22,000,000 of reserve which the 4,000,000 previously insured workpeople had accumulated to meet the obligations which they were immediately confronted with of making provision for the other 8,000,000 embraced in the 1920 Act. So that the Government of the day itself was responsible for introducing the scheme—call it relief or unemployment benefit—what you will—in order to get themselves out of a tight corner, and they are being more closely squeezed in the corner. They are entrapping themselves more every Session until we have the spectacle of the present Minister of Labour and the late Minister, one trying to justify his continuance of the policy of his late chief, and his late chief taking credit for any extension of his early schemes. It is simply one long chain of temporary Measures from this stage to that stage, and then, lo and behold, they have reached a point where the ex-Minister says, "You must stop this piecemeal business; we must have something more permanent," and yet he himself instituted and is responsible for more Unemployment Acts than any other Minister in the Chamber.
The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) asks, "What about the Trade Disputes Committee?" I am a member of that Committee; we meet again to-morrow. Some
of us are not responsible for the delay. It is difficult to get agreement with the employers, who promised months ago to submit a memorandum in reply to the memorandum that the workers suggested for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman goes further. He says that he listened with a great degree of favour to the suggestion that, instead of unemployment benefit being paid to the unemployed person, it may well go as a subsidy towards wages. A suggestion like that, coming from an ex-Cabinet Minister, leaves us no longer in wonderment as to his failure to deal with the problem of unemployment. To suggest to the man in employment: "You must pay 9d. per week contribution to provide benefit if you are unemployed, and whilst you are in employment your 9d.—and you will have no say in the matter—will go to another employer in another industry to subsidise wages." Have not the working classes of this country already made a very great contribution towards subsidising industry Are they not £700,000,000 a year worse off by reason of reduced wages? Are we to tax their contributions for unemployment benefit, and say that it shall go to industry to subsidise wages? There would be such strong opposition, justifiable opposition, to such a proposal, that I hope the Minister of Labour will never for one moment entertain such a step.
We find the Minister of Labour using some nice phrases to fit the situation. He said that there were two lovely streams, running parallel through a vast waste, and that they begin to converge and get into one channel and that now that they have got into one channel, un-covenanted benefit has almost ceased to exist. He is quite right, and that is the great failure of his Bill. This Bill, on the face of it, would lead those who have no stamp credit to their account to believe that they are going to have a period of free benefit for 44 weeks out of an extended period of 50 weeks. That is not the case. As a matter of fact, instead of this Bill being a message of hope, it is going to be, in practice, a further measure of deep despair to those who have no stamps to their credit, and have not been able to make that provision. The Minister has power under this Bill to make such Regulations as would nullify the Bill when it becomes an Act. He has issued
from time to time Regulations under the principal Act, and the subsequent Acts, and those Regulations have been the means of turning away from benefit hundreds of thousands of applicants who are not able to say that they have stamp credits to their account.
At the present time 1,340,000 people have signed the live register, and I suggest that not 1,000,000 of that number are receiving unemployment benefit. I suggest, further, that there is a long way short of £1,000,000 a week being paid in unemployment benefit, even counting the dependants' allowances. That is in respect of the live register. Those who-have already ceased signing, because they could have no further benefit, are in this position, that they can never qualify during this extended period of 50 weeks, when once they have come off. Those who were on for the first 12 weeks of the fourth special period and were cut out of benefit on the 24th January, and who were not successful in getting a further extension, cannot qualify for any of the extension under this Bill, although the Bill would lead them to believe that they would come on for 44 weeks out of the 50. No such thing. One of the previous Regulations said: "In order to try to wipe out the question of un-covenanted benefit, notwithstanding the deficits standing against your previous stamp record, we will re-establish your credit. When you have had your 12 weeks of uncovenanted benefit you must prove that you have standing to your credit some stamp credit. If you cannot do that, you have no need to apply."
Will the Minister of Labour say what has become of the single persons who were cut out? They represent between 130,000 and 140,000, and they have been denied any right to benefit. We shall be told that where it can be proved that there is an adequate income going into the home this kind of assistance is rendered unnecessary. I know of a case of a single woman living with her blind sister, who has an invalid husband The blind sister is getting 10s. under the Blind Persons Act, and the invalid husband is getting a little relief from the guardians. The single woman, having exhausted her right established by stamps, had to appeal for a free period of benefit. Upon inquiries, she was told that some of the blind person's pension ought to go to
wards her maintenance, and that was used as the reason for cutting her away from benefits.

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: Surely the local employment committee would be to blame in that case?

Mr. HAYDAY: No. The local employment committee always act upon the Regulations sent out by the Minister of Labour, who has the power to make any number of Regulations of whatsoever nature he cares. Those Regulations are never on the Table of the House, or in the Votes Office, and they are never recorded on the pink papers which are required if we are to keep in touch with the Regulations.
To-day, there are almost 500,000 persons unemployed in the United Kingdom not receiving unemployment benefit, and who cannot receive unemployment benefit under this Bill when its conditions are carried out by the Minister of Labour. It is quite plain, therefore, that the only people who will benefit by the Bill are those who can establish a stamp right under the scheme. Even though this Bill takes a special extended period of 15 months, the last period of that 15 months only provides 26 weeks of benefit out of the 52. That 26 weeks of benefit is uncovenanted as well as covenanted benefit. All persons with sufficient stamps to their credit may draw up to 26 weeks' benefit. There are persons who have a stamp credit to their account, perhaps stamps enough to take them to 40 weeks. I should like to know why, if they have those stamps to their credit, they are chopped off at 26 weeks, and not allowed to exercise their rights so long as they have stamps standing to their credit. Why are they to be limited to time, when they have a credit carrying them over a fuller period? Why should they at the end of 26 weeks be denied the right of benefit for a longer period? Under no circumstances, stamps or no stamps, any number of stamps or few stamps, they cannot if unemployed for 52 weeks have more than 26 weeks' benefit at 15s. per week.
I seriously suggest that this Bill, while, on the face of it, appearing to promise much, is a will of the wisp, a misnomer. When the fourth special period was instituted, it was estimated that it would cost £140,000,000 to run it from
November, 1920, to the 1st July, 1923. That estimate will not be reached. It will not be necessary to absorb the £30,000,000 which this House gave the Minister power to borrow from the Treasury. That saving has been effected by cutting away the responsibilities that this House undertook on behalf of those who had not been able to make their provision for covenanted benefit. Early in 1922 the proportion of uncovenanted benefit to credit benefit worked out at 66 per cent. That is, 66 per cent. of the total outgoings in unemployment pay went for uncovenanted benefit, benefit for which the applicants had had no opportunity of making provision through their stamps. In January of this year Regulations were so tightened, and so many have been excluded from benefit, that of the total paid during one week in January only 16 per cent. was uncovenanted, Therefore, from early in 1922, 66 per cent. of the total expenditure was free benefit. On 23rd January last, by Regulations and exclusions, that percentage had worked down to 16 per cent. That justifies me in saying that under the process of tightening your Regulations in order to save the revenue available for the Fund you have wiped out from benefit no less than 500,000 persons whom the country believes to be entitled to draw benefit during this period of stress.
I want to know from the Minister of Labour how it comes about that the description of the principal Act is not good enough for entitlement to benefit. That description is that the person is
capable of and available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment.
7.0 P.M.
What are the conditions the person must fulfil now before he can have free benefit? There is nothing set out in this Bill or in any Regulation. The Regulations vary week by week. I saw one this morning, which was only sent out last week, which alters the terms of entitlement to benefit from the Unemployment Fund. What is to be the standard? Can we not ask that the Minister of Labour, when the Bill is promoted, should say, "What I propose to do is to set out the terms, which will be well understood by applicants, and to which they must conform before any entitlement to covenanted or uncovenanted benefit can be accepted." Why not do
that? Instead of that, applicants go and appeal to the local employment committee. The committee hears their case, and refuses it. The applicants appeal against the local employment committee, and then the referee 'refuses their appeal. All the time, running through that, is a circular to the Labour Exchange men; a circular to the independent chairman of the employment committee, who is usually a lawyer, and another type of circular to those representing the workpeople and the employers on the employment committee. There is a different circular to guide the referee or umpire when these things come up before him. There you have got these poor individuals, without an income, not having been able to provide an establishment claim by right of stamp, being barracked about like that, week in week out, and eventually giving it up, not understanding what it is that is expected of them 'before they can get the money. Yet the Government come here, and say that these are generous proposals. They age backed up by the ex-Minister of Labour. "This is the continuance of my policy," he says:

Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear.

Mr. HAYDAY: "The one that I initiated. It is a continuance of the right policy." The right hon. Gentleman talked like this. "Oh, yes, the storm is breaking; we are leaving it behind. We are sailing a charted course. There are calmer waters ahead. There is a little lamp behind the great clouds that will light us on our way all right." Is that the right kind of description to give? Is that of any value as a solace to make up for the empty cupboard? Is that of any value to starving men and. women? The Government, by their Regulations, as soon as they get a man out of his free benefit, get his wife and kiddies out also. Not only do they rob a man of his 15s., but they take away the 5s. which was allowed his wife and the 1s. allowed for each one of the children.
The Government are not broad, they are not generous in this matter. It is insulting to say you can, have it, while at the same time you have the knowledge that not more than two-thirds of your unemployed citizens can establish a right of entitlement under your Regulations. The right hon. Member for the City of London
(Sir F. Banbury) need not be afraid that this money will not be paid back. You are borrowing from the Treasury something to help the man who is successful in establishing his claim. You must remember, however, in regard to those whose claims you wipe out, that the account is going to be against the man, the woman, or the young person to whom you refuse benefit. In effect, you say: "Whilst we are borrowing this money, none of which we can afford to let you have now, it stands on your debit side. You can work two hours. During the first two hours you work, the first charge on your income must be the payment towards wiping out this deficiency." If a man gets 9d. an hour or 1s. 6d. an hour, half of the first hour he works has to go to meet part of the obligation that is totted up against him, while, at the same time, you have refused him any benefit at all, or his wife.
Therefore the right hon. Member for the City of London need not be afraid It is like the case of a man, down and out, who is lent 6d. by his fellow-man, and is told, "I know you are hungry, old chap, but I want this 6d. back the first hour you work." The average man would not do that. He would say, "No, old chap, I cannot afford to give it to you, but pay me back when you have recovered your strength and after you have been able to make some provision; it will not be the first charge." Here, however, the State comes along, and says, "This will be the first charge." What is the proportion paid by the State? It is entirely misleading. The second paragraph of the Memorandum says:
The State contribution after the end of the deficiency period is to he the same as in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920; namely one-fourth of the joint contributions of employers and employed, instead of the present proportion of approximately one-third.
Just see what that is. The State is the third of the three partners to this trans action. There is the workman and the employer. The latter, in fixing the wages, takes into account the fact that he has to pay 10d. a week for his man, and he will adjust his wages in accordance with his responsibility. The man pays his 9d. a week. The third partner, the State, has all the management, makes all the rules, and either gives or refuses benefit. No trade union would dare to act like that. You talk of the tyranny of trade unions,
but you say, "No, it is my right; I am an autocrat; I am the Labour Minister, and I sit here and make my regulations. I can make the regulations and wipe you out of benefit, although you pay." Having all the machinery under its control, and being the third partner, the State pays as follows: The employer pays 10d., the workman 9d., and the State 6¾d. Is 6¾d. a third of the total contributions? It is not. It is more like one-fourth of the total contributions at the moment. Yet the State is the third partner. It does not call the workmen in to elect a committee to confer with it as to what are the most humane regulations in accordance with the inflow of contributions and the Government's borrowing powers. The Government consults no one except the House of Commons. The right hon Gentleman the Member for the City of London admitted that he did not konw anything at all about the Act. I will be generous, and say he admitted that he did not know much about it.

Sir F. BANBURY: What I said was, I did not know very- much about this Bill, not the Act. This is not an Act.

Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman will know less about the Bill in its operation when it becomes an Act. This is the skeleton, which will be clothed by the Minister of Labour. The right hon. Gentleman can dress it and' redress it, just as he likes, to suit his passing fancy. He can make fashion plates of it, of differing types, just as he desires. When the State gets back, after clearing the deficiency period, it will not pay one-fourth, only one-fifth. I think—this is where I find fault with the Financial Resolution—the State ought to pay one-third of the total. If it is 9d. apiece, let it be 9d. all the way round. Then the fund will be fairly safe. Hon. Members should not go away with the idea that this Bill—as appears on the face of it and from the well-chosen language of the Minister of Labour—is going to provide 44 weeks out of 50. There will be 500,000 people who will never get past their first 12 weeks.
I do not know whether the Minister of Labour is going to reply, but there are some figures which ought to be known. I refer to the weekly outgoings in unemployment benefit; to the number of insured persons—not their dependants—
and to the number of applicants. I have said the total was less than 1,000,000, yet the Government speaks of 1,340,000 persons signing. The difference between the two figures means that 340,000 of those signing are not getting any covenanted or uncovenanted benefit. Of the single people, the Government has wiped out not less than 130,000 or 140,000. They have ceased to sign. Counting those people, you are well on the way to 500,000 people who will not benefit by this Bill, when it becomes an Act, unless you can be more generous in your interpretation of the qualifications of entitlement. If you do that, and if what is expected of a person be made plain and understandable, I should say it would be a good thing to carry on for 44 weeks out of 50 whilst you are preparing for the more permanent Measure to take its place. Even following on the second period of 12 months, with the three months' extension up to July, you are only allowing 26 weeks. Why should not a man or woman with sufficient statutory credit to carry them on for 40 weeks not have the 40 weeks until they exhaust their right, instead of being limited to 26 weeks while the other is carried over until some other period? While we shall reserve to ourselves the right in Committee to obtain an improvement in some of the Clauses, which are bound to mislead those who are looking with greater hope to this Measure, at the moment we shall let it go to the Second Reading in order that we may see to what extent it can be remedied in Committee.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I wish to make one or two observations on this very important question, and to ask for the indulgence of the House in so doing. I hope that indulgence may be more readily afforded in that my remarks will be very brief and, I hope, to the point. I should like to associate myself, in a great measure, with the remarks of the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, when he dealt with the subject of insurance by industry, not only for the financial reasons which he mentioned, but also for other practical reasons, such as the great difficulty of defining an industry. This difficulty is very great when you come to consider the very large number of craftsmen who are associated with different industries, such as fitters who may be associated with the textile industry, or bricklayers and others who
may be engaged in industries other than their own. These difficulties arise particularly when you come to consider facts like this, that the manufacture of cotton when carried on in Bradford is generally known as wool manufacture.
Another serious difficulty in bringing about insurance on the basis of industries is that it would immobilise labour as between different industries and prevent free movement. At the same time I should regret if it were not possible to do something in the direction of insuring by industries, because it would place upon both parties in industry a great measure of responsibility in conducting their own affairs, and also because I believe that industrial insurance could be conducted by both sides of industry, including the trade unions, more efficiently and more cheaply than it is at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading, said he would like to regard many of the intricate measures which have led up to this Bill as past history for the purpose of this discussion. There is one provision which I am sure all concerned will be very glad to regard as past history. That is Section 7 of the Act of 1920, which the Government propose to modify by Clause 5 of the present Bill. This modification will be welcomed very heartily by all who, like myself, come from seaport towns where there is a large amount of casual labour. It affects, not only casual labour, but it affects also crafts such as shipwrights, whose times of employment are modified and controlled in many cases by the operation of the tides, which do not necessarily conform to the rulings of the Ministry of Labour.
The question of unemployment insurance involves two separate issues. One is security of remuneration and the other is security of employment. This Bill does something, though not a great deal, in reference to the first point, but it does nothing with regard to the second. For that reason, although I support the hope expressed by the other hon. Members that the Bill may pass a Second Reading without a Division, it cannot be regarded as a satisfactory Measure or even as one that is intended in any way as a permanent remedy for unemployment. I would like to emphasise strongly the argument of the hon. Member for Middles
brough (Mr. T. Thomson) that the cost of a really adequate system of insurance would be far less than generally anticipated.
Neither this Bill nor any one of the Bills which have preceded it touches unemployment from what is a very important side, that is from the psychological side. It is not realised sufficiently that unemployment is not only a question for those who are out of work but that it is also a psychological question which affects men who to-day are employed, who never have been unemployed, who may never be unemployed, but who, nevertheless, have got in the back of their minds the fear that they may be unemployed at some time. We all know the kind of case. A man is engaged on a job of which he can see the end, and he does not see the next job following. He thinks of his wife and family and makes that job last, and I for one cannot blame him. It is impossible to estimate the cumulative effect of the holding up of effort due to this psychological factor, but this much may be said, that it is a very important factor in raising prices and decreasing output, and is consequently a very important contributory factor in maintaining that system of under-consumption in which so many of our people live, and which is, in itself, a definite cause of unemployment. Therefore I press the view very strongly that if this subject is tackled on broad, comprehensive lines the cost would be far less than is generally anticipated.
There is one suggestion which I have not heard mentioned in this House, and I think that I have either heard or read all the speeches on the subject of unemployment in this Parliament. It is that we should have an inquiry into the relation of credit facilities to unemployment. I have heard it suggested—I do not know who would be the actual body for carrying it out—that there should be a co-ordination and a consideration of the management and control of public works, in order that they might be distributed in such a way as to provide employment at times when the amount of unemployment was greatest. But I would like to suggest that it is more important to investigate—I know that it is a highly intricate and technical subject —the relations of credit supply and price fluctuation than it is even to carry out the very admirable suggestion with regard
to the distribution of our public works. I think that if a committee of bankers and economists, and whatever experts may be necessary to deal with the matter, were to consider that question, they would see that there might be a. possibility of stopping these movements and trade booms which always give trouble before they reach their apex. In conclusion, I express the hope that this Bill may obtain a Second Reading without a Division, in order that some of the points which have been raised may be discussed at a later stage.

Mr. SEXTON: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) upon the delivery of his maiden speech. I have never listened to a speech more admirably delivered, with the facts marshalled more closely, and showing fuller knowledge of the constituency and the wants of the constituents which the hon. Member represents. I have sonic industrial responsibility in the same constituency because the river only divides us. It is difficult to approach this Bill without running the risk of repetition. This is the sixth or seventh Unemployment Insurance Bill presented to this House. The importance of unemployment insurance has been debated repeatedly it has almost become threadbare. This Bill, however, is an exception. I have never disguised my position. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor (Dr. Macnamara) knows my hostility to any contributory Bill whatever. At the inception of the principle of unemployment insurance I took up the position that there should be a noncontributory Act, and that the State should take responsibility or that there should be a national tax upon industry to put the burden of unemployment on all the industries. I have had to accept what we could get, but, like Oliver Twist, I was always asking for more. Therefore I would like the right hon. Gentleman to understand that while accepting the good parts of this Bill, on principle
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
Of course that is no personal reflection on the right hon. Gentleman. My main protest against unemployment insurance of this character is that all these Unemployment Insurance Acts, Factories Acts, Compensation Acts, Employers' Liability Acts are framed and discussed and passed
in this House on the basis of affecting men who are probably employed all the year round. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will smile when I introduce King Charles' head again, but I am unrepentant, and again I am going to call attention to the position of the casually employed man. He seems to have been fated to be the Lazarus of legislatures, not content but compelled to wait for the crumbs that drop from the legislative table. He was excluded from the Factories Act. It never operated with respect to the casually employed man at the dock until 1904. He was excluded practically from the Workmen's Compensation Act. The docks, but not the ship, were included in the Factories Act, and when the Workmen's Compensation Act was introduced it was discovered that the port side of the ship, which was tied to the quay, was a factory, and the starboard side was not a factory. Let me give an instance. The man driving the winch on the deck for those working over the side of the ship and on the quay is, as to his left band, in a factory, and as to his right hand he is outside a factory. Under the then law such men had no protection, because the law provided compensation only for men who were employed on a permanent basis.
My one objection to this Bill is to be found in Clause 5. May I congratulate the Minister of Labour upon having at last recognised the necessity for relieving the iniquitous inequality of the old Act, as affecting the casual man who has no permanent employer, but has many employers during the week? Without undue egotism, may I claim to have succeeded in influencing the right hon. Gentleman's mind in that direction? As I have pointed out many times to this House, men may work one day in the week and be idle the remaining five days, and under the existing Act they are disqualified from receiving any benefit at all They may work only a few hours, or they may work on the Saturday afternoon at the end of the six days. This Bill to some extent modifies the iniquity. Nevertheless, there are still some flies in the ointment. Clause 5 says:
Any three days of unemployment within a period of six consecutive days shall he treated as a continuous period of unemployment, and any two such continuous periods separated by a period of less than three weeks shall be treated as one continuous period of unemployment, and the expression continuously unemployed ' shall be construed accordingly.
May I again submit that the casually employed man at the dock has only a 5½ days week? At dinner time on the Saturday, the week, so far as day work is concerned, is ended, and a man commences overtime. Unless the right hon. Gentleman interprets Sub-section (2) of the same Clause as meeting that difficulty, the three days period will not benefit the casually employed man. We want carefully to consider that point. There is another point arising out of the Clause. There are such things as holidays—Good Friday, Christmas Day, and so forth, declared national holidays. There is no break in time and tide. The seven days of the week are working days, so far as the shipping industry is concerned. When the holidays come, when Easter-time comes, because of the little extra pay time and a half for tank Holiday, and double time for Good Friday and Christmas Day—men may be willing to work. But the employer decides to shut down, and the interpretation has been that these days do not count in the qualifying period. Let me pay this tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Notwithstanding the most complicated nature of the last Act, in every case that I presented to him all possible effort has been made to meet the situation. But the existing law would not allow of this being done. Good Friday and Christmas Day are being interpreted as not idle days because they happen to be holidays. There is no holiday at the dock.
Take the case of Sunday. The right hon. Gentleman very faintly suggests in Sub-section (2) that such a period may be inclusive or exclusive of Sundays. I hope that it will be inclusive. The reason is, perhaps, against myself and against individuals of my own organisation. Under the existing law a man may be idle for the whole six days of the week and qualify. He can go to work on Saturday midnight and continue till Sunday midnight, and for that time he can earn a full week's pay. He can then be idle the following week and qualify for unemployment benefit for two weeks. That is an absurdity which is quite Gilbertian. The present Act was never intended to apply to the casual labourer. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the provision was lifted bodily from the National Health Insurance Act, which was meant
to apply only to those who were employed permanently. Without warning it was suddenly dumped on this House by his predecessor as applying to everyone. From practical experience I gave a warning at the time. I was told that no legislation could legislate for sections, but must legislate for the whole. I am glad to see that that opinion prevails no longer, for in this Bill we have the introduction of a very generous modification —the principle is at least admitted that the iniquity now existing can be met in some way.
My next point is a somewhat difficult one for the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration. This Bill does not meet the case of what I call the bottom dog. Half days are not included. There are men who never get more than a couple of half-days of work a week. Under normal conditions there are men who, perhaps owing to their physique, are so situated. The casual dock labourer bears the whole brunt of bad times in other trades. The docks are the dumping ground of the unemployed of every other trade. No questions are asked. A boss looks at a man and thinks that he is physically strong enough to do the donkey work required of him. He does not ask for any character. These labourers are the flotsam and jetsam of industry. They get a half-day's work to-day, an odd half-day to-morrow, and perhaps another the day after. But if they get only one half-day in the week they will be disqualified for the rest of the week and will have to pay their full contribution to the State. Even out of 5s. 6d. earned in the week their card is stamped.
Another point that the Bill does not, deal with is this. A most iniquitous and dishonest system is growing up. An employer wants some work done. A man is picked to go to a job. The foreman is instructed to examine the man's card, to see whether he has been employed by anyone else during the week and has his card stamped. If the card is not stamped the foreman will not employ him. The idea, of course, is that if the card is stamped the employer saves the amount of a contribution for that week That is not the worst of it. There are, in dock phraseology, men known as hobblers knocking about. They purchase stamps from the post
office, and they stand by, knowing probably that a man seeking work has not been employed for the first or the second day of the week. They sell him a 9d. stamp for 1s. in order that the man can put it on his card and get the chance of employment. There is no protection against such practices. I suppose the Minister of Labour could not afford protection, because he had no knowledge of the procedure. I give him the information now. In Committee my colleagues and I will endeavour to frame some kind of Amendment which will deal with highway robbery of that kind.
I am sorry that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is not here. I had intended, in his presence, if possible, to deal with his interjections. The one thing exercising his financial mind to-day was "What is it going to cost?" I have sat in this House for some years watching the right hon. Baronet supporting or opposing the expenditure of money. I never heard him object to the payment of £60,000,000 to the railway companies. Not a word of protest came from the right hon. Baronet in regard to that money, yet it will never be paid back. It has gone irrevocably. If the right hon. Baronet were here I should also remind him that I never heard his voice raised in protest, either in the House or out of it, against the reduction of wages and the cost it involved to the general worker in this country. So far from his voice being raised in protest against the reduction, I think the contrary was the case, yet it meant to the general workers of this country £6,000,000 a week, or £310,000,000 a year, with the economic position just as bad, or nearly as bad, as it was during the War. The right hon. Baronet and those who share his views have no conception of what this means, because they have never had experience of the conditions of the men whose cause we on this side are advocating to-day. We know and we speak from experience of this modern Autolycus, this
picker-up of unconsidered trifles,
the flotsam and jetsam of the commercial tide. Ebb or flow, it does not matter to him. He is tossed about between the two. A day's work or half a day's work is all he seeks, and the only alternative for him is to become a chronic tramp and the end—what? A pauper's grave. The only
noise he makes in the world is when, in the words of the poem, they
Rattle his bones over the stones,
He's only a pauper whom nobody owns.
Certainly the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, in this Bill, does not own him, but in spite of the difficulties and the obstacles which have been suggested, if. I am fortunate enough to get on the Committee, I shall during the Committee stage bombard the right hon. Gentleman with instances of the injustice of his case.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I should like to join with my hon. Friend who has just sat down in expressing our congratulations to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) upon his contribution for the first time to our Debates. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) has spoken, as he always speaks in this House, in sincere and picturesque phrases on behalf of the casual labourer, and many of us are glad that he concluded by saying that during the Committee stage he would make it his business to suggest such improvements as occurred to him, in order that that very hard case might be better dealt. with The first observation I should like to make is that there appears to be general agreement that this Bill should be given a Second Reading and, indeed, I think some such provision as it contains was in the circumstances inevitable. In spite of that, however, it is well that we should realise that this is mere hand-to-mouth legislation and does not really solve the problem. It is carrying on, for a short additional period, provisions which themselves were quite temporary and which became necessary, as we must all admit, because of want of foresight and failure to provide against the difficulties which now confront us, earlier than we did. The Minister gave a little history of unemployment legislation, and I do not touch on that except to make one single point. The original legislation of 1911 was unemployment insurance in the true and proper sense of the term. It was a Measure based on a very careful estimate and calculation of the elements which must go to make up any sound insurance scheme. These are three in number. First, the premium to be paid second, the risk to be covered; and third, the benefit to be conferred. So successful was that calculation—which the House will note was made, not in a time of bad
trade, but was made as such legislation ought to be made, in advance, as a provision against bad trade which might hereafter come—that if I followed the figures right, those who were compulsorily insured under the Act of 1911, numbering between 2,250,000 and 2,500,000 insured persons, have built up a fund which actually—

Sir M. BARLOW: There is also the Act of 1916.

Sir J. SIMON: I am speaking of the original Act and, of course, there was the extension in 1916. I am referring to legislation before the Act of 1920. These insured persons have, as I say, built up a fund which actually has an estimated surplus of something like £22,000,000. That is carrying out the true principle of insurance. It is the essence of insurance as everybody who has considered the real nature of benefit schemes will admit, that you should gather in your contributions and form your fund in sufficient time to be able to pay your way. If I may be allowed to indulge in a personal recollection, I remember very well that when I was a Minister partly responsible far the Bill of 1911, a change had to be made in the Bill just before it was presented to the House in order to secure this very object. The original Act of 1911 allowed payment of benefits to begin on 15th January, six months after contributions began. If I recollect aright, the original intention was to begin the payment of benefits on the 1st January. Then it was observed, and it was just as well it was observed, that in Scotland 1st January is a convivial holiday. Were we to have announced to the inhabitants of the northern part of this island, six months in advance, that assuming they found themselves overtaken by sickness on the 1st January or unable to resume their employment, they would at once be in a position to draw benefits to which they had been contributing for the previous six months, it was thought the resumption of work in Scotland was likely to be extremely slow as soon as Hogmanay arrived. For that reason the date was altered to the 15th of January by which time the Scotsmen had gone back to work. I only give that illustration because it shows that if you are going to work an unemployment insurance scheme properly, it is of the very essence of such a scheme,
that it should be set on foot in sufficient time. In a Debate on this subject at the end of last year, I pointed out that it was very unfortunate that extensions of unemployment insurance beyond the Acts of 1911 and 1916 did not take place rather sooner than they did. It was in 1918, while employment was still very good, that a most authoritative Committee recommended to the then Government:
The necessary steps to this end should clearly be taken with the least possible delay. At this stage it is impossible to foresee how soon the problems of demobilisation may become concrete and urgent realities. Unless a scheme of general insurance is devised and launched at the earliest possible date, it may be impossible to avoid the disastrous chaos of unorganised and improvised methods of relieving distress.
Everybody can see now that it is a great misfortune that those recommendations were not rapidly put into operation. By extending unemployment insurance in 1918 it might have been possible to get in such contributions from employers, workmen and the State, that when the storm burst in the summer or autumn of 1920, a large fund would have already accumulated. It is all the more satisfactory to know that as regards those who were originally covered by unemployment insurance, a fund of £22,000,000 had been accumulated before the storm burst. As I followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, what has happened since to the finance of the scheme appears roughly to be this. First, the £22,000,000, which was the result of contributions from employers, workpeople and the State under the earlier and more limited Acts, has been appropriated and applied to assisting a much wider range of unemployed than those who contributed towards accumulating the £22,000,000. We must remember, as to three-quarters of that sum, it was not State money at all, but the money of the people who had made contributions. Then there has been an exercise of the powers of borrowing which the Act of 1922 created to the extent of £17,000,000.

Sir M. BARLOW: The Act of 1922 did not create but extended those powers.

8.0 P.M.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know whether others will agree with me or not, but it seems to me that we are to be congratulated and the Minister is to be congratulated upon the fact that it has not become necessary to exercise borrowing
powers beyond that figure. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others speak as though the situation at this moment exhibited a condition of extreme insolvency. I should like the House to consider whether or not that is a proper use of language. This is the true position: The whole system of State provision against unemployment, by way of insurance, has now reached such dimensions that there is a contribution coming in week by week to the fund of something not far short of £1,000,000 a week. At any rate, it is something like £40,000,000 a year. What has happened is, that an enterprise, which has an assured income not far short of £1,000,000 a, week, has been compelled to borrow £17,000,000. Looking at it as a matter of business, I cannot believe it is dealing fairly with the question to speak as though an enterprise with that enormous revenue were really in an insolvent and almost bankrupt condition because it had borrowed £17,000,000 out of maximum borrowing powers of £30,000,000. The Minister gave us some very interesting figures as to what the fund has been called upon to do since the storm burst in August, 1920. The right hon. Gentleman, if I followed his figures rightly, said that in the last two and a half years there had actually been paid out from the Fund under the head of unemployment benefit, in round figures, £125,000,000, and he told us that that sum might be broken up in this way, that £33,000,000 of it might be regarded as State contributions, £48,000,000 as employers' contributions, and £44,000,000 as workers' contributions. If I understand my right hon. Friend rightly, he does not mean—and he is very careful in his language; I do not think he said—that at this moment the £125,000,000 that have been distributed are, in fact, produced to the extent of £44,000,000 by the workmen and £48,000,000 by the employers. I understand the Minister to say that that is the way in which this £125,000,000 would be distributed, assuming that the £17,000,000 which have been borrowed from the Treasury had been paid back; in other words, the £17,000,000—this is the total extent to which the Fund may be regarded as having temporarily fallen short—which the Treasury have advanced is, so to say, spread rateably over the three parties,
the State, the employers, and the work-people, and that, subject to that £17,000,000 being thus spread over, and composing a portion of the £125,000,000, everything else has, in fact, been produced by employers' contributions, by workmen's contributions, and by State contributions, as the case may be. If I have stated that correctly, I think it goes to show that it is possible to be too gloomy about this subject, and I do not think it is to the advantage of the State that we should deal with the whole tremendous subject of unemployment insurance as though it had utterly broken down. It has had to exercise a power to borrow to the extent of £17,000,000, which, considering the enormous figures we are dealing with, is nothing very, very alarming, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that as soon as that £17,000,000 is paid off he has got provisions in the Bill which he hopes will put things upon their proper footing and basis.

Sir M. BARLOW: Hear, hear.

Sir J. SIMON: I am very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. While that is so, there is, I think, this criticism to be made, and this is the only point of criticism, if I may say so, in which I want to indulge. The hon. Member for St. Helen's stated, in his picturesque way, that he had not come to praise Cæsar, but to bury him. I am not quite sure who Cæsar was, but I hope I shall not be going outside the rules of order when I say that, at any rate, the "sexton" tolled the bell! The real criticism of this legislation, which I should like to urge upon my right hon. Friend is this. I do not myself complain that it is merely a temporary extension, because I do not think this could have been avoided, considering where we are now, but it does seem to me very unfortunate that we are having legislation passed again and again—I think there was some in March, 1921, some in July, 1921, some in November, 1921, always pushing three or four months forward—and we are more and more getting into the condition that we have not really got a sound actuarial scheme of unemployment insurance, on the one hand, which stands upon its own feet and pays for itself according to calculations made in advance, and, on the other hand, such supplementary assistance as, in a time
of extremely grave depression, undoubtedly it is the duty of the State to provide. I think we ought, as soon as ever we can, to get these two things so far separated that we may be able to see what the State can do, and ought to do, under the head of unemployment insurance, and it seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead was quite right when he said that, sooner or later, there would have to be some inquiry on two or three very big fundamental questions. The particular one he mentioned was the relations between credit facilities and unemployment. Another one, which, I am sure, the Minister will agree, it is really very important tot to be dropped, is this question of insurance by industry. Let the House observe how that stands at the moment. There was a Section in the Act of 1920—Section 18 or Section 20—which provided for schemes being brought forward for contracting out of the State's unemployment insurance scheme. It is, obviously, desirable that, having passed that provision, the provision should not be a dead letter. Now it is a dead letter up to the present.

Sir M. BARLOW: There are only one, or at most two, contracting-out schemes.

Sir J. SIMON: I think it is, as a matter of fact, the people employed in insurance business, hut, apart from that one, substantially contracting out, bringing forward schemes by which a particular branch of industry would make its own arrangements, is for the time being held up, and it is held up by special emergency legislation, because—one can see the reason—of course, in times like these probably the Government did not feel that it was possible to allow a trade which might be able to make better terms for itself than the State is able to offer to get itself out of the general scheme and throw the burden on to other people. I can see the reason for that, but it is surely most undesirable that, by a series of temporary Acts which keep pushing the thing a few months forward, we should not be in a better way to reach some deliberate conclusions, based on sound principles, and therefore I hope very much that the time will not be much advanced before the Minister gets the replies, which I think he asked for at the end of last year, both from the National
Joint Council of Trade Unions and the National Federation of Employers' Associations. He sent them an examination paper, which contained three questions, or three suggestions, and it is most important that we should have the views of those who know best as to whether this method of carrying out unemployment insurance is or is not a sound method. My hon. Friend just now pointed out some of the possible difficulties in the way. On the other hand, I think that, other things being equal, it is much to be desired that we should thoroughly explore, and if possible apply, this method of making industry really responsible for those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) just now said, are the casualties of that branch of industry.
We cannot do that as long as we go on carrying Acts of Parliament which simply push the matter forward for a few months, and I conclude by saying that I hope very much that the Minister may be right in his estimate that things are going to improve, because this method of temporary legislation again and again repeated—I will not call it stop-gap legislation, because the right hon. Gentleman refuses to stop the gap—tends greatly to confuse the public mind. If I may speak for myself, I think it makes it extremely difficult for a Member of the House of Commons to follow the details of the Bill, and the time is rapidly approaching when we really ought to have the whole subject surveyed, for the purpose of laying down on much wider lines and much more scientific lines the way in which the community is going to bear a burden which it is the duty of the community to bear, namely, the burden of the man who, through no fault of his own, anxious to find work, is for the time being out of a job.

Mr. HANNON: I hope I may be allowed to associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) and by the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to the admirable speech which we heard from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White). May I also offer my congratulations to the Minister of Labour for the concise and clear way in which he presented this Bill to the House this afternoon. Whatever may be the opinions in any part of the House on the
merits of the Measure itself, I am quite certain that everybody will admit that my right hon. Friend left nothing to be desired in his exposition of the Bill. Now I think my right hon. Friend will be very grateful for the speech of the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley. It was kindly, as was characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman; it was conciliatory, and I am not sure it did not give my right hon. Friend a very helpful lift over a very difficult situation, and if only in this House, on economic questions of this character, there were a little more of that spirit of co-operation between the Front Benches, we might do a great deal more in tiding over many of the difficult problems which face us in this House in the economic life of this country. There have been some very eloquent and very forceful denunciations of this Bill from the other side of the House, but in looking back upon the operation of the Act of 1920 and subsequent Acts, I think every hon. Member of this House will agree that no other community, following upon the War, has introduced similar legislation, and that no other community has so successfully tided over these grinding difficulties which have had to be faced after the War. We have passed in this country, since the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920 was put upon the Statute Book, through a time unparalleled in our economic history. In spite of all the difficulties which have had to be faced—this stress of unemployment, this stringency in families, all the pictures that have been painted, in his picturesque and delightful way, by the hon. Member for St. Helens—in spite of all that, because we have had operative this system of unemployment insurance, to which the employers, the workpeople, and the State were contributory, we are to-day, from the point of view of our relationship between capital and labour, in the first place in the whole world.
My right hon. Friend, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, pointed to the contributions which had been made respectively by the three parties to the unemployment problem to-day, and he quite rightly paid a tribute to the magnificent spirit shown by the whole of the wage-earning classes of this country in paying their proportion of the vast sum which has been expended during these past three or four years in carrying the country through these grave economic
difficulties, but I would like to enter a word here for the employers of this country. The employers have, I think, been equally generous, have made equal sacrifices, notwithstanding the difficulties under which industry has had to be carried on, and have contributed their share to the success of this scheme, and I join with the right hon. Member for the Spen Valley in inviting my right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of coordinating all this scattered legislation in some way, so that there shall be, for the advantage both of employers and employed in this country, a. workable scheme, more or less continuous in character, which will not necessitate repeated and scattered legislation from quarter to quarter or from half-year to half-year in this House. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the suggestion in that direction made by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley. I would like to call my right hon. Friend's attention to the Memorandum to the Bill, curiously constructed from the point of style, and, I think, defective in relation to the Bill. I ask him to look at paragraph 2 of the Momorandum—
The Bill proposes to make permanent the additional benefits payable in respect of a wife (or invalid husband) and dependent children, which under existing legislation (Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922) are to continue only until the end of the deficiency period ' of the Unemployment Fund.
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to reply at the close of this Debate, will make it perfectly clear what is connoted precisely by the use of the word "permanent" in that connection. I will turn for a moment to the very interesting and very moderate speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). All his speeches in this House are full of thought. They are always conceived in the spirit of helping legislative purposes, but I was disappointed this afternoon to find that, with all his criticism of this Bill, he had not put forward one single constructive suggestion of an alternative kind. The right hon. Member for Platting said that the legislation introduced in the first instance in the Bill of 1920 was only palliative, and was no real substantial solution of the problem of unemployment. I am exceedingly sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but. I will put this to his
colleagues on the Front Bench. What has the Labour party done during that period to present any constructive proposal to help get the country more effectively out of its difficulties since the Act of 1920?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Our Unemployment Bill of last May.

Mr. HANNON: Your Unemployment Bill of last May! My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay) said he was waiting with great anxiety for the presentation of a report which was being prepared, apparently by the Labour party, and he hoped from that to find some illuminating suggestion in the direction of developing insurance by industry. I say with very great respect that if the forthcoming report is as full of suggestions of a practical and workable kind as the reports that have been issued in the past, my hon. and gallant Friend will be grievously disappointed when he comes to study it. I do not mean in the slightest degree to be offensive to my hon. Friends opposite, but I submit I am entitled to call attention to the barren quality of the statesmanship exhibited in these documents in the past. The right hon. Member for Platting spoke very strongly on the fact that we had still this great number of 1,340,000 people out of employment. One can only ask him to reflect an what would be the condition of this country if these measures had not been introduced and continued in this House since 1920. I think if he went into the industrial districts to-day and asked those competent to express an opinion on the value of this legislation, he would find that the great mass of the workers are entirely in agreement as to what has been done through the introduction of these measures.
A good deal of play was made by the right hon. Member for Platting with the speech of the Prime Minister in Glasgow. Of course it is exceedingly easy, after a General Election, to make free play with statements of the kind, but what sort of speeches did many of my hon. Friends and right hon. Friends opposite make during the Election? What have they since done in this House and outside to give effect to any of those generous promises which they made to their constituents at the General Election? It
would be much more useful if, instead of criticising speeches made at the Election, they showed in what way they were using their constructive capacity to achieve the ends which they hoped to realise by their policy, instead of criticising ours. I disagree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not in his place!"] I am exceedingly sorry he is not in his place, and I hope he will forgive me for making this observation in his absence. I say that the £22,000,000 which is said to have been raided from funds under former Acts, and the £17,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman has borrowed under his borrowing powers, even if lost to this country, would have been a sound investment in carrying us through the period of industrial peace which we have had. It is worth paying a great deal to have secured, in the difficult times of the last few years, the industrial peace we have enjoyed. There has been an appeal made this afternoon for co-operation between employers and employed in giving full effect to this Measure. Speaking in some small way on behalf of the employers, we accept this Bill. We are prepared to do our best to make this Bill a workable Measure in the interests of the great mass of the wage-earning classes of this country. We see, of course, some points upon which a little more thought must be expended when the Bill goes to Committee, but, subject to that limitation, we are prepared to accept the Bill, and to do our best to make it a really helpful Measure to the people of the country as soon as it becomes an Act.
I cannot pass from this point without paying some tribute to the admirable work done during many years by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara). I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would feel that this Debate was not complete if some acknowledgment were not made of the really valuable work he has done, and the splendid practical sympathy he has always shown in the interests of those who have to work with their hands in this country. I am sorry the Minister has not made any allusion to certain proposals that were made to him from the greatest city in this country, namely, Birmingham, on the subject of a possible combination be
tween the benefit payments out of uncovenanted funds., and the payments made in the interim period by local boards of guardians. My right hon. Friend is entirely familiar with the substance of the proposal. He has had the opportunity of discussing it with Birmingham intellect, which, of course, is the highest quality of intellect in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to say a word on that when he is replying to the Debate this evening. My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London is certain that the finance of this Bill will not work. The fact that the working people of this country have subscribed £44,000,000 to these funds since the inception of this scheme proves, I think, that the Measure will ultimately impose no obligation on the taxpayers of this country, and the fact that the employers have provided £48,000,000 is further evidence in support of my contention that the Bill will effect no loss upon the taxpayer. I sincerely hope the House will give this Measure a Second Reading and that it will be discussed in Committee in a way that will really lay the foundation of a better understanding between employers and employed, which, Heaven knows, speaking from the employers' side, we most desire at this moment of our difficult and troublesome economic existence.
I feel very strongly on the question of insurance by industry to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. It is one which will receive careful thought from the Ministers, but we all know that the question is bristling with difficulties. I think it has been suggested that the Employers' Federation and the Trade Union Congress General Council had been slow in giving their replies to the catalogue of questions submitted to them by the Minister. Believe me, however, in both cases these bodies have had very great difficulty, though they may have exhausted by examination their sources of information, in giving anything like helpful replies to the questionnaire submitted by the Ministry. This Measure is part of a great process in helping along the country in this most difficult time in our economic history. I trust the Measure will be passed into law quickly, and with such modifications as would improve it both from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, and from the point of view of those of us who on this side of the
House represent the employers. I am quite confident that the Minister has as large a measure of sympathy with the workers as any Minister of the Crown in our past history, and that he will do his best in administering this Measure in the future to bring into closer relationship the employers and the workers, and to give the latter help and encouragement in returning to their self-respect as men who do not want to receive what are commonly called doles, but who desire work in which they receive remuneration. I trust this scheme will be part of that process of bringing us back to happier and better times.

Mr. BUCHANAN: An insurance system of the kind about which we have been talking was meant, as I understood it, more for short periods of unemployment and between times of the flow of work than for the present abnormal time. No person when the Act was first adopted thought that the time would come when we would be compelled to face a long period of unemployment such as that which is now upon us. The consequence is that these Measures are now operating in a way it was never intended they should operate. I want, in the first place, to criticise the contributions to be made payable by the workmen under the proposed Bill. I think, in view of the small wages now being paid to men engaged in industry, that these contributions are excessive, and I want, secondly, to suggest that the whole idea of asking workmen to pay by this method is bad.
After all, unemployment is not a problem of the shipyard worker, or the miner alone. It is as much a problem of the schoolmaster, or the Member of Parliament, or the landlord. Landlords draw rents from land, and they in turn pay no contribution for anything that arises from unemployment; yet the problem is as much theirs as it is that of any other worker. I, for my part, think that unemployment ought not to become a charge merely on those engaged in a particular industry; unemployment ought to be a State charge and ought to be noncontributory. Furthermore, might I say the Act is bad in itself? The Act, in dealing with covenanted benefit, has a totally different set of Regulations to when it is dealing with uncovenanted benefit. Why, if this money is a loan, as it is supposed to be, do not the same Regulations
operate in the matter of uncovenanted benefit as operate in the case of covenanted benefit? A man who has stamps to his credit is affected in one way, a man claiming covenanted benefit has his case safeguarded in this Act, but a man who is not receiving covenanted, but claiming uncovenanted, benefit is governed by a totally different set of Regulations.
I have in my hand one of the latest Memoranda issued by the Ministry of Labour. You find there that the man who is claiming uncovenanted benefit is subject to a scrutiny that the man who is is claiming uncovenanted benefit, is subjected to. You find, for instance, in this Memorandum that a man can lose his benefit although he may refuse a. job at less than trade union rates of pay. If he claims covenanted, benefit, he is 'allowed to refuse a job of that nature, and yet retain his benefit. But under uncovenanted benefit he is not 'allowed that course. In this Memorandum issued by the Minister of Labour that power is taken away, and it is left to the Committee to judge entirely that point of view, apart altogether from trade union conditions. Then, again, there is a, Clause dealing with the three days' period, that three days in any three weeks, and so on, when the man is not entitled to any benefit at all. I want to suggest to the Minister that he will allow each day to stand by itself.
You have the precedent in the National Health Insurance Act, which allows each day to stand by itself within 12 months I suggest, in view of the inequalities that exist, and that a man may be idle six days in three weeks, and not be entitled to any benefit at all, that you should admit each day within a certain period standing by itself. Again I suggest, according to this Memorandum, that the Minister of Labour has too great a power. He has power, according to this Memorandum, to alter, or readjust, or remodel the whole business. There is one part of the Act in itself which deals with a greater or a less period. Under that part of the Act the Minister even extends the gap period to more than the period already, in vogue at present. He has the power there to make it a greater or less period, whichever he desires. There is another criticism I want to level at the.
Measure, namely, that dealing with the period when times become normal again. This Bill is meant, if I mistake not, primarily for the period that we are in at this moment. Why, then, burden the Bill with something that appertains to a normal period?
If you are going to deal with the normal period you should redraft a, new Bill leaving out that part dealing with Part II. I suggest that that period ought not to have come under this Bill at all. These proposals deal only with 26 weeks' benefit. If a normal period comes round again a. man will only receive 26 wekes' benefit in a given year. That ought not to be included in a Bill primarily to deal with a period of undue distress. I have listened to the speech of the Minister of Labour, the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), and tile right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), and when I heard the ex-Minister of Labour reproving the Minister of Labour he reminded me of Satan reproving sin.
I would remind hon. Members that this is a problem which has not arisen since the War. Those who were in power in 1918 ought to have dealt with this problem in a much more constructive fashion, and they must share a good deal of the blame for the present condition of affairs. The hon. Member for Croydon (Sir Allan Smith) holds a most important position on the employers' side. I met him only a week ago last Friday, and he told me that unemployment was becoming worse and was likely to become even worse within the next few months, and worse than any period during the last past twelve months. My own union, which deals with a skilled trade, finds that trade is becoming steadily worse, and but for the fact that a large number of our young men are emigrating the state of unemployment would be even worse than it is now. The future holds out no hope, and this Bill cannot deal with the problem.
My outlook in this country is that you will never have anything less than 500,000 unemployed, and this Bill cannot deal with a problem of that character. Under the present Act a married couple are allowed £1 a week and. a single man 15s. How is the problem of the single man going to be solved, because 15s. will not keep him in anything like decency, and, will
not keep him in a fit state to return to his work. For these reasons I feel tempted to go into the Lobby against this Bill. It is a miserable Measure which treats my class in a callous and brutal fashion, and treats life as being of no value. We remember your famous recruiting posters, and one feels annoyed now at the way our people are being treated. Men have been refused benefit under the most paltry and miserable excuses. Employment, Exchange managers have been insisting that the men shall bring notes from their foremen in order to show that they were really looking for work. If a man is not willing to proceed 20 miles from Glasgow to look for work he is not supposed to be anxious to find it.
This week I received a letter from a constituent of mine who had his benefits stopped because it is alleged that he committed a fraud. For eight weeks that man has received no benefit. No charge has been laid against him, and nothing is said against his character, and yet the manager refuses him benefit because of an alleged fraud for which nobody prosecutes. What you are doing under this Bill with your gap period is simply throwing the obligation on your local authority. It means that in Glasgow the poor have to foot the bill of the poor. Why should you treat the man who claims covenanted benefit in the same way as one claiming uncovenanted benefit? Why should you have a gap if the man is going to pay the money back again. I suggest that this Bill is bankrupt of statesmanship. To the last hon. Member who spoke, I would say that if the Labour party had been in power as long as hon. Members opposite, and this is all we could produce at the end of that time, then the Labour party would deserve the scorn that the people who have produced this Bill deserve at the present time.

Captain. MOREING: I was very hopeful when I heard that a new Unemployment Insurance Bill was going to be introduced that some really serious effort would be made to deal with the problem created by the gap period yin necessitous areas. I happen to represent a district in which unemployment is probably more severely felt than in any other part of the kingdom. I am referring to the tin-mining industry, which has suffered a period of unexampled depression during the last
two years. During that period of two years these men have had no work at all, and they have been thrown on the resources of the world. It is really impossible for the Poor Law authorities in my district to meet their obligations, and I sincerely hope that the Minister of Labour in Committee will take some steps to deal with the problem created in areas such as those of which I am speaking. We have been told that this is a temporary Bill to deal with a temporary situation, but it purports to be a permanent Measure to deal with the unemployment situation.
Whatever we may think on the problem of unemployment insurance, whatever may be our own particular ideas on the question, we are bound to recognise at the present time that we have to deal with au exceptional question, and with a period of exceptional and unparalleled difficulties in the manufacturing and trading world. I would say to my hon. Friend who has just resumed his seat, that I think he was taking an unduly gloomy view of the situation, when he ventured to suggest that in future in this country we shall always have at least half a million unemployed. We listened with the greatest interest to what be had to say. We felt he was speaking on a problem which he knew intimately, and was making a most eloquent appeal to this House couched in great sincerity of language. But I venture to suggest that the problem is not so disastrous as he imagined. There is no doubt that, when framing the Act of 1920, the Government of the day attempted to deal with it as a permanent solution of the difficulty; but unfortunately, the unparalleled trade depression which followed knocked the bottom out of their calculations, and we shall probably be faced with two or three little Bills of this character unless the problem is attacked in a broader way or unless trade rapidly and materially improves. I should like to warn the right hon. Gentleman against going in for a scheme of insurance by industry. I have had experience of various schemes of that sort in various parts of the world. However seductive may be the voice of the charmer, however specious on the surface the proposal may be, it is by no means so easy to carry through insurance of this kind as some hon. Members suggest. Perhaps I went a little too far when
I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman was considering such a scheme. I hope he will not listen too readily to the various enthusiastic Members who have schemes of that sort in their pockets or up their sleeves.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: I have listened with very great attention to most of the speeches on the Second Reading of this Bill to-day. I agree with what has been said regarding the very large number of Bills that have been passed through this House. As a matter of fact, I think the total will work out at about one Insurance Bill for each six months in the last few years. Obviously it is desirable to deal with the business on really sensible lines. My experience has always been that if a trade union is constantly altering its rules, the members never know where they are. Here we are dealing with millions of people not on any voluntary principle. These people are not paying their contributions under the unemployment scheme because they like it. I venture to say that if a scheme were put before the country on voluntary lines, whatever may be the amount now paid per week, it would very soon drop to zero. I want the Minister to realise that in legislation of this kind, he is exercising a power unequalled in the history of past legislation. He has become in a sense a great dictator and a great autocrat. I shall never rest satisfied while legislation of this kind remains on the Statute Book of this country, so long as those who contribute these enormous sums of money have no say of any kind in their administration. The workpeople of the country contribute £44,000,000 annually. The employers contribute £48,000,000, and yet they have no more to do with the actual administration of these vast sums of money than the man in the moon. That is wrong. It is a sound logical suggestion that the people who pay the piper should call the tune. However, in this kind of legislation, the people who pay the piper have nothing whatever to do with the tune; all they have to do is to keep on paying. Therefore, I say the Act is wrong as it stands now, and I am inclined to think we shall never get on right lines as long as we continue on our present lines.
During the War many hon. Members of this House had experience of the methods devised to help the country out
of its difficulties. There were many Committees then in existence—Advisory Committees. I suggest, with all sincerity, to the Minister in charge of this Bill that those Committees did help many Ministers over many serious difficulties. We are dealing with experimental legislation, and know it is impossible to foresee how far it is going to develop. I believe it will develop to such an extent that it will cover practically all the workers, and, whether they like it or not, the time is not very far distant when they will be gently invited to contract inside this Act of Parliament. It seems to me that these burdens which we are shouldering at the present moment are of such an enormous size that all those who labour should do their share towards meeting the difficulty. It is very pleasant, of course, for some industries where unemployment may be very rare not to take their share of the burden, but I disagree with that entirely. I think we are all entitled to pay our share. I will go a little further. There are large numbers of people in this country who, even in a time like this, when you have 1,300,000 or 1,400,000 workers unemployed, are practically contributing nothing whatever to the solution of this problem. Some of them, even, may be Cabinet Ministers. They make no contribution under the Act; there is no special tax upon them. It is true they may give a little voluntarily, but there is no charge upon them, and I should like to see them paying their share in the same way as anyone else.
There is another point of view I would like to put to the House. The contribution of the State in the present dimensions of unemployment seems to me to be very meagre. All said and done, that contribution amounts to £33,500,000. But what about the other people who contributed £22,000,000 which was saved during the period of good trade from the contributions of about 4,000,000 people. It seems to me that the State's contribution, instead of being reduced, as it is going to be, from one-third to one-fourth, borders almost upon meanness, and at a moment like this, when we are facing a degree of unemployment that is unexampled, it is surprising that the State should be casting about to get its contribution reduced. Some of the dodges that are resorted to in this kind of legislation seem to me to be mean in the
extreme. With regard, first, to the contribution of the State, I say that that is mean in the extreme for meeting such an enormous problem as we are now facing. Another illustration is the introduction of the gap system. That seems to me to be one of the greatest frauds that could ever be perpetrated within the four corners of a Bill. People to-day in industry are making provision for unemployment benefit, not for relief from the boards of guardians.
The gaps introduced in this legislation compel a man, if he is to exist at all—and he cannot live on air; even a Cabinet Minister cannot do that, or a workman either—when you have these gaps of a couple of weeks, you have to visualise the situation of the man when his benefit terminates. He may have been out of employment for six, twelve or eighteen months; what is his position when the gap comes? It is the most difficult thing in the world to eke out an existence when he is receiving his benefit, but when his benefit is completely suspended, for however short a. period, his only alternative is to go to the board of guardians and ask for relief. That would he very repugnant indeed to me, and must be so to hundreds of thousands of men who, by this set of circumstances, are compelled to go and ask for relief. It is very bad legislation indeed, compelling really industrious, earnest, honest working people to go to the boards of guardians and ask for relief, and familiarising them with a thing that should be the last object in the mind of any statesman in this country. Do all you can to keep your honest, earnest, hard-working man away from the board of guardians. Surely that is pre-eminently the object of unemployment insurance. If that is not the object, it has no object at all. This Bill should be so drafted as not to force people either to go to the guardians and ask for relief or to go and seek employment at rates of wages that would be a scandal to anyone calling themselves decent-minded. It can only have one or other of these two effects, and you cannot dodge it. I think we ought to have some statement from the Minister en this point. The Labour party in this House is a serious factor, and we have a right to this kind of information. We ought to know exactly where lie is driving.
9.0 P.M.
With regard to the Fund, I know it is over-spent, but there could be nothing
more futile than for the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London to suggest that the Fund is bankrupt. I should say that it is in a much more healthy condition than many large industrial establishments in this country. It is over-spent to the extent of some £.17,000,000, but that is not six months' contributions, and as trade revives larger and larger numbers of men will be paying in. On the present contributions it is obvious, to anyone who has paid any attention to the finance of the matter, that it will not. be very long before the whole position is turned completely round, and the Fund, instead of being overdrawn, will be paying in to its credit at the bank. Does not that indicate that the men who to-day are receiving uncovenanted benefit are in a sense only borrowing this money, and that they will have to pay it hack? They cannot escape that. It is not like being in a trade union, when you can drop out after drawing all your benefits and join when the funds are up again. You have these people fast there is no escape. That. is where the autocrat comes in. He does not permit them to escape. That line of reasoning should be considered a little more fully than it has been and, instead of imposing hardships upon these people, we should realise that, whatever they draw in existing circumstances, they will, whether they like it or not, whether they agree with it or not, willy-nilly, have to pay it all back and a good deal more besides. If there is any argument against the gap that is the argument.
I sometimes thought, in listening to the speeches that have been made, that the gaps were invented in order that bridges might be invented to get over them. It is a kind of thing that has been brought into existence without clearly understanding that the men who receive this money are only in a sense receiving it as a loan, and that every farthing they receive will have to be repaid. I welcome some of the improvements which the Bill contains, and I do not think anything is gained by using hard words to the Minister who is responsible for legislation of this kind. He has a good deal of pressure to meet from one side or the other in these questions, and it is only reasonable and right that he should give heed to those representations, and endeavour so far as he can in legislation to meet them. At the
same time, I do agree with the suggestions that have been made that all this legislation should be brought together. Under legislation of this kind, no one can ever know where they are. The very speech of the Minister himself was frightfully involved, and I venture to say that there were very few people in the House who could really follow its intricacies. We are getting into very fine, theoretical points in discussing a small Bill such as this. I hope that, before we get much further, some Bill will be brought in which will bring all this legislation together, and will give us a scheme that will stand fire—legislation that will carry us through, not six months or 12 months, but a few years, so that the whole scheme can be put upon a really solid, effective, business-like foundation, which will redound to the credit of any Government that brings it in and will be a big measure of satisfaction to the millions of people who are forced to continue to contribute.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I only rise to put one or two short points to the Minister. I quite realise that this is the permanent manner of dealing with the standing problem of unemployment in normal times. Great relief works may be needed to deal with the economic depression due to the breakdown and paralysis of Europe, but, when that has passed by, we shall need in the future this system of unemployment insurance, because, so long as British trade depends on overseas markets, we are at the mercy of failure of crops in tropical countries, of political revolutions, of all the infinite number of causes which may bring about ups and downs of trade Against that normal unemployment and against those normal depressions, against the cyclical rise and fall of trade, I feel sure that the method of insurance is the right one., and that method, begun in a defective way by Liberal statesman before the War and perfected by the general co-operation of this House, will hold the field, and it is very important for us to get it on to right lines. I am not, therefore, going to deal with the details of the Bill except on one point.
I will confess to a heresy. In spite of what the Minister of Labour has said I remain unconvinced on one point. I think the local authorities might be able to use
the unemployment benefit under the most limited schemes. I quite agree with all that the hon. Gentleman says about the danger of subsidising wages, and I am not ignorant of the evils of the old Poor Law. I very well remember an economist who, having made a study of that, printed his conclusion in capital letters. He said his study and his experience had led him to the belief that legislators had no need to under-rate their power for evil. He said there was no generation of men which Tory squires or well-intentioned reformers could not in the course of one generation convert into beasts. Therefore I am quite aware of that evil and of those dangers, but if the local authorities are confining themselves strictly to works put in hand expressly for relief, and are using on those works men directly employed by them, and are using this kind of employment as a means of testing the genuineness of applicants for relief, I do not really see the danger of combining this unemployment benefit with the payment of wages. The Minister of Labour said, "If you ventured on that dangerous course you might bring about a break-down of the contributory system." If this House has embarked upon the whole experiment of uncovenanted benefit, that is a far greater danger to the contributory system, and even if you are going to recover by subsequent contribution what has come through that system it seems to me that that is a far greater danger, and if you can swallow that camel I do not think it is really worth while straining over the very small gnat of this scheme. Therefore I hope the Minister of Labour will not be too pedantically precise, as I think, in rejecting these schemes which are brought forward by some municipal authorities.
The main point I wish to put to the Minister is to reinforce this plea for a general inquiry into the future of the Act. It is much more than a mere question of putting together all these various Acts. It is true that the Statute Book often reminds me of the floor of the House of Commons. It is about as much littered with Acts of Parliament as the floor of the House of Commons is always littered with stray Parliamentary Papers; but it is a comparatively easy matter to consolidate and put these Acts right. I agree that we ought to have had a number of Inter-Departmental Committees, but I
think you want a much broader inquiry than that, carried out by men who are engaged in industry and represent different interests and so on—workers, employers and economists—on very broad and general lines. There are a number of points on which I suppose we have all got preliminary, rather than cursory, opinions, and I imagine we should all like to have them explored. I, certainly, should like to have them further investigated. There is at present, I believe, an Inter-Departmental Committee which is considering the question of combining the whole machinery of insurance against sickness and insurance against unemployment. I do not think that sounds a very hopeful method of procedure. I doubt if you could possibly administer unemployment benefit by means of approved societies. Approved societies are exceedingly valuable for their own purposes, but they are not industrial bodies, and though I understand the attraction of getting one book and one stamp and one card, and all the rest of it, in which all the contributions could be shown, yet I think you may spoil the system of the approved societies by trying to make that combination. Still, I should wish to see that explored.
I am not very much attracted now by the idea of insurance by industries. I agree that at the first glance it would seem desirable to get a system under which each industry bears its own insurance and contributes in proportion to the amount of employment in the trade, each industry thereby being encouraged to limit its own insurance, to regularise employment in it and to steady it by every possible means, but I think, if you look into it more closely, one sees the very great difficulties. It is true during the War the cotton trade bore the burden of its own insurance very successfully, but that was a very special case and it required, I imagine, the kind of action which is only possible during war time. There are very serious difficulties in demarcating industries. There would be great difficulty, I think, in providing for the necessary mobility of labour from one demarcated industry to another and you would have great complications, I imagine, through a man going from one industry, with one set of rates of contribution and benefit, to another and then coming back again. No doubt all the
labour which is transitory, passing from one to the other, would get itself involved into inextricable entanglement of which I do not see the way out. If you had a system of insurance for industries special employment agencies, I presume, would be necessary for each particular industry and you would have a great deal of overlapping and a somewhat extensive and elaborate system. However, the matter has not been sufficiently explored and I hope a large Committee of this kind would do something.
I am rather more attracted by another scheme which has been put forward, though, again, I think this has not been sufficiently considered, but which has the great authority of Sir William Beveridge behind it. It proposes the revolutionary plan of abolishing stamps, books and the whole apparatus of the contributory scheme. It would throw the burden of unemployment insurance, like accident insurance, upon the whole industry, and it would be possible under a scheme of that kind, I believe, to get the advantages of insurance by industry, namely, to apportion the charge in each industry to the unemployment existing in that industry and to encourage employers in any particular trade to combine with the workmen to limit and diminish unemployment. That means the abolition at the contributory system, on which I cannot help thinking that there is considerable confusion in our minds. The contributory system is said not to depend upon a tax. Compulsory contribution for all the purposes of government is a tax, but a compulsory contribution for one particular purpose of government is not a tax. Both of them seem to me to have very much the same characteristics, and if you have your funds raised by a just and equitable system of taxation, I do not believe that the effect upon wages would be very different in the one case or in the other. I think we might have a scheme in which the individual workman would not contribute, and if he fell out of employment the cast of his unemployment benefit could be recovered through the Employment Exchanges from the employers and from the State contribution, without the whole of this complicated machinery of stamps, letters, and the keeping of accounts practically for each insured person throughout the country.
I should like to see what seems to me the most attractive form, a minimum noncontributory scheme, with a minimum benefit, and we might supplement that minimum benefit by schemes under Section 20 of the Act of 1920. I should like to see, not contracting out of that scheme, but a system of contracting further in. I do not want a special scheme under Section 18 of the Act of 1920, but I think we might have schemes under Section 20 in which employers and their employés might combine in joint industrial councils to work out a scheme for additional benefits beyond the minimum prescribed by the Statute. In addition, they might cooperate in devising an arrangement in each trade upon a voluntary basis for the diminution of unemployment and the steadying and regularising of trade. All this requires a very great deal more investigation and exploration, but I think it. is interesting, and it is the kind of subject which I should like this big Committee to explore. In dealing with an enormous scheme of this kind, it is extraordinarily difficult for anyone to think out all the reactions and all the implications, and after further consideration one might easily change one's mind. It is for that reason that I should like to see the whole matter further explored. The subject is of such vital importance, the sums are so huge, the influence on the lives of the workers of this country and on the home trade and commerce of this country is so great, that I do not think we could do better, while this Act is in force, than to have a thorough exploration by that responsible and authoritative Committee which I have suggested.

Mr. STEPHEN: I have followed the remarks of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) with great interest, but I do not propose to deal with any points that he raised. I express great sympathy with the Minister of Labour. He seems to me in connection with this legislation to be in an unfortunate position, because of his association with a former member of the Liberal party, and also because of the fact that he has not given sufficient consideration to the foresight of the Liberal Government in 1911. It is very unfortunate for him that whenever he proceeds to deal with this matter of unemployment, the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Mac
namara) comes along and says that all the good things in it are due to the training he received when he was assisting in the kitchen while the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell was in control. It is also a difficult situation for him that he has not yet exercised the great amount of foresight that was exercised by the Liberal Government in 1911. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) expressed the matter very clearly when he said that his Government was so much wiser than the present Government, or, at least, those in that Government who were responsible for insurance legislation were so much wiser, because in introducing their legislation at the last moment, they found out when Hogmanay took place in Scotland, and altered their Measure accordingly.
Although I sympathise with the Minister of Labour, that does not incline me to the view that this is a good Bill. It may be good from one point of view so far as he is concerned, and that is, that he proposes to take to himself very large powers in dealing with the people who are unfortunate enough as to be depending upon uncovenanted benefit. I do not like Subsection (3) of Clause 2, and the powers that the Minister is taking to himself. I represent a constituency in which, while there is a large area containing many comfortable people, there is a larger area in which the great mass of the people are suffering the most extraordinary miseries and hardships. I found on coming into this House that one of the first things that I had to deal with was the position of many people in that constituency with regard to uncovenanted benefit. I found that there were some 3,423 people who had applied for uncovenanted benefit. Of that number, 970 were rejected by the Bridgeton Local Employment Committee, mainly on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking employment. I want the House to realise what those figures mean. In a city like Glasgow, with nearly 90,000 people unemployed, with work quite an impossibility for all those people, one person in four was considered by that Exchange as not genuinely seeking employment. I can only put such a decision down to the fact that circulars must have been issued by the Minister of Labour for the guidance of the committee or the manager of the Exchange in dealing with
these matters, warning those individuals that the uncovenanted benefit must be put at as small a. figure as possible.
If the Minister of Labour is to have wide powers, I want them defined in such a way that the poor people, in districts such as that which I represent, will obtain justice in this time of great hardship for them. The legislation in connection with unemployment is very complicated. While the Minister of Labour was giving us his historical reference, I heard an hon. Member on this side of the House say that it was very fortunate that none of his papers blew away. The hon. Member, I think, would like to have had the Minister of Labour sitting for an examination on the Acts he has to administer. Most of us in the House would feel somewhat shaky if, before being allowed to deal with this matter at all, we had to undergo an examination on those Acts. Yet these people whom we represent, who are unemployed and in this state of distress, are supposed to know so much of what is contained in this complicated serious of Acts. Accordingly. I do not like this Bill, because it adds to the confusion, and does not make it plain enough, to those of our constituents who are in the unfortunate position of being unemployed, how they will he able to obtain the benefits to which they are legally entitled.
There is another Clause of the Bill to which I would like to draw attention. Clause 9 allows the Ministry of Labour to deal with the case of an individual who has received more benefit than he ought to have obtained. I do not like Clause 9 at all, because of the way in which it allows the Ministry of Labour to take from the individual who has received too much, even although he got it in good faith. The Ministry is going to deduct it from future payments due to him.

Sir M. BARLOW: It is only when it is in bad faith.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Ministry, finally, is going to be judge of whether it was in good or bad faith. If there is a defect in the administration, the onus should be on the Minister and on his Department to prove that the individual received the money in bad faith. As the Bill stands, the individual has to show that he acted in good faith when he received the benefit. If the Department cannot con-
duct its business properly, it is rather hard on unemployed workmen that they should be put into this position. We have to remember that this legislation is so complicated; it is a patchwork. It reminds me very much of an Old Testament character, whose name was Joseph, and whom we remember as the lad who had the coat of many colours. The legislation is complicated, yet the individual who is in receipt of benefit is to be put into the position, if he has received a few shillings extra, of showing to the Ministry that he did not really know he had received too much under all these series of complicated Statutes. We have patchwork legislation for dealing with unemployment, and, in so far as it has ministered to the needs of these people who are unemployed, it has only sufficed to keep them in life. It has also given to so many of them a. patchwork appearance.
Many people—I think the Minister of Labour himself and many other hon. Members—were inclined to think that there was something very generous about the provision made for the unemployed in our country. It has been said that in no other country is there legislation to compare with it. I do not know if any other country has had so much unemployment, after such small wages, as we have had in this country. I know on a previous occasion it was said that in America there had been a greater amount of unemployment, but in America, the workers had obtained so much higher wages than they get in this country that, when the unemployment time came, they were more ready to meet it than are our people. I want the House to look at this problem of unemployment from the point of view of the man who has been out of work for a long time. The tendency with regard to the individual who has been out of work for a long time is to examine very closely into his activities during his idle days—how many gates did he approach in his search for employment, and what documentary evidence can he produce to show that he has been hunting round looking for a job? You do not give an unemployed man so very much. After many months of unemployment, and the receipt of the miserable allowance under these Acts, an unemployed man and his wife and children are in a most wretched condition. An individual in such a condition is not one into whose circumstances you should examine so closely.
A decent provision for unemployment would give a larger grant, according to the longer time a man is out of work. An individual who has been out of work for a month is in a far better position to deal with the circumstances of his household than a man who has been out of work for a year. That ought to be taken into account in dealing with this problem. I want the House to look at the business from the point of view of the man who has been out of work for quite a long time, and who finds himself being cut off and receiving no uncovenanted benefit because it is said that he is not genuinely seeking employment. Such people in the main are not educated people. They are not people who are able to state a very good case for themselves They go before a committee, and they are confused and turned down as not genuinely seeking employment. I want greater generosity from the House in dealing with those people. There has been much congratulation to-day on the fact that this fund is almost solvent.
The right hon. Member for the City of London suggested that it never would be solvent, and right through there has been the assurance given to him that it is going to be all right, that there is going to be no doubt about the solvency of the unemployment fund, and I agree with those who say that. So much of the money is money which the working-class people have got to pay that for that reason the Government will see to it that this fund will be kept in a solvent condition by the workers being compelled to pay. I would have liked to say to the right hon. Member for the City, who, I regret, is not in his place at present, that I would have far greater doubt about the solvency of the guarantees given under the Trade Facilities Act. They are given to people who are not unemployed; they are given to the business people, to the capitalist section of the community, and I think that that section will require a great deal of watching with regard to those guarantees.
The Minister of Labour suggested that the storm was about to pass, that the sun was going to shine again, that everything was going to be nice and bright for everybody, and he pointed to the figures in connection with unemployment, and showed how they were coming down. I would
ask the Minister of Labour if he took account, in assuming that there is a decrease in the number of unemployed, of the number for whom employment has been provided under the Trade Facilities Act, and of the increased employment in the mining area at present, and the employment under the various schemes set on foot by the Government? If the numbers who have obtained employment, which is not the outcome of the natural working of the industrial machine, but something produced owing to those extraneous Measures, were added to the numbers on the live register, is there really any decrease to suggest to us that we are going to get back to a better state of things? He referred to an investigation by certain gentlemen with whom. was the hon. Member for Dover, and he spoke of their conclusions. If I remember aright, one of the conclusions to which they came was that the number of unemployed to-day is going to be the normal number of unemployed in this country in days to come. We have got to recognise that unemployment insurance, while it deals with the provision of palliatives for this dreadful state of affairs, in connection with so many hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens, does not provide the remedy of altering things so that we should not have any unemployment problem. To my mind it is far more important to get down to that than to consolidate all the Acts in connection with unemployment on the Statute Book.
I would ask the Minister of Labour to look into those facts in connection with men being turned down as not genuinely seeking employment, and if he does not consider that 28 per cent. shows there is something radically wrong in the administration in this connection, and will he see to it that those who have been so badly treated in the fourth period should have an opportunity for their cases to be reheard, so as to be able to take advantage of the extended period? I want to see a great amount of sympathy in connection with these Acts which will express itself in practice. I know that some hon. Members are rather sick of sentimental feelings and sick of the gush about sympathy and so on. Very often, when I think of what that sympathy leads to in practice, and how little it means for the class I represent, I am reminded of the amount of sorrow that a wife had for her husband who was dying. The
poor man was just gasping, but he managed to signal to his wife to come to him. He whispered to her to get him something, and he said, "I am afraid, Jean, I'll be awa before you come back." She looked at him and said. "Don't say that, John, don't say that." "Ah, Jean," he said, "I'm afraid I'll be awa before you come back." "Weel, John," she said, "if you feel you're so far gone, blaw oot the candle not to waste the licht."
When I hear expressions of sympathy from the other side, for the needs of the working-class people and of the unemployed, and of the men who gave their services on the battlefields for their country; I am inclined to think so often that the Government may say to them, "If you are going to drop out, blow out the candle." I make a closing appeal in connection with the unemployed because of the fact that I get hundreds of letters about ex-service men who are unemployed. It is a most distressing thing that men who have given their service in the War should not be able to get benefit, and that they should be regarded as wastrels, not genuinely seeking employment. I want a. larger amount of sympathy in the administration of the Act, and I want a guarantee that we are going to get reconsideration of those cases that have been turned down in the past so that we may feel that under this new legislation our people are going to get a larger measure of justice than they have ever obtained in the past.

Mr. WEBB: The House will realise that the feeling expressed by the hon. Member who has just spoken, and the statistics which he gave, require serious consideration by the Ministry, because the feeling expressed is widespread throughout the country. Up and down the country, in every corner of it, there is indignation at the failure of the Ministry of Labour, at the failure of this unemployment scheme. We have been told of the very large amount spent in benefits under this scheme. Those amounts do not seem to me to be very large in comparison with the magnitude of the evil. What we have not been told is that more than one-third of the unemployed, according to the official statistics, are outside the benefit for one reason or another. The Minister of Labour told me, in answer to a question, that the estimated number of unemployed
wage-earners at a recent date was 1,670,000. At that time the number on his registers was 1,300,000, and the number of people to whom he was giving benefit was less than 1,000,000. Consequently, for one reason or another, not always the fault of the Ministry, more than one-third of the people who are unemployed are actually not in receipt of benefit under an Unemployment Insurance Act which purports to cover nearly the whole of the wage-earning class. If this goes on very much longer—there is reason to believe that the gap has been increasing —it will not be an Unemployment Insurance Act but an unemployment disinsurance scheme. It is that to which the Ministry of Labour is steering.
I do not want for the moment to deal with the general principle of this Bill, because it is only a. continuing Bill, but I must point out that it continues some very bad features which have led to this disqualification of more than 33 per cent. of the unemployed people. For instance, there is the three weeks' gap. I fail to understand why that gap was invented. There must have been some reason in it. Much as I have known about the Treasury in the past, I do not think that it could have been nothing but a Treasury provision to save money for those weeks. There must have been some policy in it, but for the life of me I cannot understand what the policy is. There is no saving to the country or to the community. These men, hundreds of thousands of people, who suffer by the gap, have to be maintained, and they are maintained. Any economist would say that there is no saving at all. There is no moral good which I can see in cutting off the subsistence of these men for that time, after you have admitted that they are qualified in every way. In fact, there is a terrible moral harm, because: you drive them to the Poor Law. If there is anything I thought we had learned from experience, it is that you had to preserve the abhorrence and shrinking of the British workman from the Poor Law. It is like the shrinking of the young man from the prison. Once he has gone to prison he finds it is not such a bad place after all, and you have lost your weapon. Once a man goes to the Poor Law and gets relief you have lost the protection that lies in the shrinking and abhorrence.
Here is a Government of the twentieth century deliberately arranging to send several hundred thousand men to the Poor Law and telling them to ask for relief, in a Measure the purport of which is to save people from having to go to the Poor Law at all. What is the sense of it? Many years ago the answer to those who asked for relief was. "No outdoor relief; come into the workhouse, wife and children and all." That is not done now. As a matter of fact, there is not a board of guardians in the Kingdom which, if it knew that a man was to come into an income in three weeks' time, would tell him to break up his home and come into the workhouse with his wife and children for three weeks. Unfortunately we have not the Minister of Health here. He does not tell the board of guardians to do that, but recommends them to give outdoor relief. What is the consequence of this three weeks' gap? We have processions up and down the country of unemployed workmen who have been driven to the relieving officer to get outdoor relief for three weeks. What is the good of it? It is no use whatever. Economically it is not merely useless to shift the burden from national to local funds; it is much more than that. On national funds it is more or less equalised all over the Kingdom. But this burden of unemployment is heaped up in a small part of the Kingdom, so that under 40 unions out of 640 are bearing twice their share of the burden, and 600 are bearing much less than their share of the burden. It is upon those unions, which already bear far too large a share of the unemployment, that you are deliberately imposing this new charge by the gap. It cannot be justified on any grounds whatever.
It is a disgraceful provision, and I hope that the Minister of Labour will allow it to be rejected in Committee. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to give me any reasonable argument in favour of the gap. In this House he would find the great concensus of opinion in favour of the removal of the gap. The hon. Member who spoke last said that 25 per cent. of the people who claimed benefit in his constituency were rejected. I do not think he quite understood why that was. I have been seeking to discover the reason. I think that. I know. It, probably falls under the head of another attack on the Minister of Labour as an
autocrat, a sort of Soviet dictator who makes rules for the unemployed. It is those rules which are at fault, especially that rule excluding the single man from uncovenanted benefit. We say the single man for short, and, as far as I can understand, the Minister of Labour does so. But the rule is much longer than that. It is the single man living with his relatives, who are assumed to be in a position to support him without hardship, or something to that effect. That is the rule which I constantly find given to me. I have had it from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Labour. But that is not the rule after all. The rule, as he made it under the Act, was that these were to be single men who even when in employment, had not supported themselves and had been partially dependent on their relatives. Now when unemployed they go for benefit, and the Ministry rules them out.
Unfortunately, owing to this habit of using the phrase briefly, up and down the Kingdom the unemployment committees and superintendents of Employment Exchanges are ruling out single men living with their relatives, who are assumed to be able to support them, contrary to the rule that the Minister himself made, and contrary to what he said was the purpose of the rule. He confines the exclusion to those single men who, even when in employment, had not maintained themselves fully, but had been partially supported by their relatives and are now living with their relatives; but the rule has been extended so as to exclude all single men living with their relatives. They are now being excluded by thousands and that accounts for the large proportion of 600,000 unemployed men and women who are not getting the benefit under this unemployment "disinsurance" scheme. There is another cause of exclusion, and I will not say that it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman himself. It is a Section of an Act of Parliament and therefore we must all take the blame Originally under this scheme it was left to the superintendent of the employment exchange to test the bonâ fides of an applicant by offering him employment and if hon. Members look back to the original Act they will find nothing more than that—it was for the Department to test the bonâ fides of the seeker for work by offering him employment. Unfortun
ately in the Act of 1921 a provision was introduced with regard only to the uncovenanted benefit, that the applicants must be genuinely seeking whole-time employment. I should like to construe that provision word by word, but there is not time. They must be ""genuinely" seeking employment. Everybody should be genuine about everything. As to "seeking employment," I have heard of a case in which the superintendent of an exchange refused uncovenanted benefit to a woman because he said she was lame and could not go about seeking employment. Consequently she was not to have the benefit. She was well and therefore could not get the sickness benefit. She was a young woman and therefore the Poor Law would not give her any outdoor relief. I have heard of even worse cases than that. I have heard of a case in which the superintendant of an exchange told an applicant that unless that applicant went personally to every firm in the industry from one end of the city to another—and it is a large city—he would not believe that applicant was genuinely seeking employment.
Of course, there is no use in proceeding on particular instances, but you have the fact that 600,000 people are off the roll; that 600,000 unemployed are not getting the benefit. From my investigations, as far as they have gone, it would seem that is very largely because of the increasing stringency of the administration of this uncovenanted benefit, which has been deliberately brought about in order to restrict the amount of the benefit. It seems to me that the Minister of Labour, if he were the Minister for Labour and not the Minister for the Treasury, would ask himself about those 600,000 people and would take the blame to himself, or, at any rate, would feel uneasy as to what was happening to them. We are certainly entitled to ask about these 600,000 men and women who are not on his register and who are not getting benefit. The purpose of the unemployment insurance scheme was to provide benefit for these people, and its purpose is defeated if they do not get it. Of course, it may be necessary that some should be refused, but when we find more than one-third of the entire number of unemployed not in receipt of benefit it is time to ask, how is the administration going on? In what way does it manage to defeat the intentions of Parliament and of the scheme, to
defeat, I suppose, the intention of the Cabinet which is responsible for this scheme, and certainly to defeat what should be part of the purposes of the scheme, namely, that the people should be satisfied. There is growing up a great bitterness of indignation against any Government which happens to be administering because of the failure of that scheme.
10.0 P.M.
Uncovenanted benefit is frequently talked about as though it were a free gift from the State, and it is suggested that we cannot look a gift horse in the mouth and that it is not unreasonable that the Minister should be given autocratic powers to withhold it whenever he thinks fit. But this is not a free gift. I remember the case of a man who went on to a building job. He had been unemployed and had got nothing to eat, and after he had been working for a morning he went to the foreman and asked for something which I believe is called a "sub"—an advance. He did not consider that he was receiving a free gift. What he received was going to be set against what would become due to him at the end of the day or the end of the week. As a matter of fact the Minister of Labour himself refers to it as "benefit ahead of contribution." It is not a gift. Every penny of it will be paid back by these people. What is more, the people to whom the Minister is refusing uncovenanted benefit will contribute towards the repayment. No distinction is made in the contributions exacted from the single man as compared with those of the married man. Single men and their employers have paid in the past the same contributions as those paid in respect of married men. The contribution has been tremendously raised, deliberately, in order to replace this loan in the Treasury, and some few of these 600,000 people are passing into employment every week and are beginning to pay back what they have never received. The rest of them, if they get into employment, will also have to pay back. It will be deducted from them. I think we may reassure the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that. the Treasury will get the money back quite safely. But in their hour of need it has been withheld from these people in the application of an arbitrary rule made by
the Minister under the powers given by an Act of Parliament and that has been done deliberately in order to limit the number of people to whom uncovenanted benefit would be paid. That surely is a dis-insurance scheme instead of an unemployment insurance scheme.
I suggest that in Committee we shall have to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider an Amendment which will secure to these single persons what his own rule gave them. His own rule has been departed from; it is not carried out by the Ministry itself; it is not carried out by the local committees, and it is not carried out by the superintendents of the Employment Exchanges. But the rule still stands, and single men are being deprived of their uncovenanted benefit contrary to the rule of the Minister himself, and contrary, as it seems to me, to all equity in the matter. Yet he is going week by week to levy these men for contributions at the increased rate in order to repay the loan required for the purpose of uncovenanted benefit. He will make them repay what he has refused to give them in their hour of need. That is a matter about which we have a right to ask, and it is a matter with which we shall have to deal. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the interim report of the Committee recommending the abolition of the refund. When I examined the Bill, I found that provision was not in it, and I am very glad the Government or the right hon. Gentleman took the right view at the last moment and left that out. I should like to explain to the House with regard to the refund. Under the unemployment insurance scheme, any man on arriving at the age of 60, or on retiring after the age of 60, has a right to receive from the fund the whole balance between the contributions which he has paid in and the benefits which he has received plus 2¾ per cent. interest. Consequently, there will from now onwards be a stream of people entitled to these small sums, and they will not be quite small in some cases, because even now 85 per cent. of the people are in employment.
The Committee, headed by Sir Alfred Watson, proposes, on purely actuarial grounds, to abolish that refund and to deprive all those millions of people of their vested right to these funds. Really, this Government does seem a strange Gov
ernment. I do the right hon. Gentleman the justice to admit that the Clause is not now in the Bill, but he mentioned it in his speech, and if I might warn him I would say, Drop it. If there is a proposal—I want to speak very seriously about this—brought forward to confiscate by Act of Parliament the vested right to these refunds owned by millions of people up and down the country, poor people who will not know anything about what they are entitled to, who cannot possibly make up the sum, who can be cheated with impunity, if the House will stand it, if that Clause is brought forward I venture to say that this House of Commons will not pass it, and I do not believe any other House of Commons will. But If there were any House of Commons which would deprive those millions of people of these small sums, then I suggest that we should have such a crusade from the country that the Ministry would be obliged to refund them.
I feel that the Government is plunging deeper and deeper into a financial abyss of these weekly doles, which, including the poor rate, amount to something like £100,000,000 a year. Just imagine that this economical Government, which is straining every effort to cut down expenditure, which is ruining our educational system. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I do not think they realise that education is one of those pieces of machinery in which you cannot catch up lost time. No one can give the child back the years stolen from him. If you are supplying inferior teachers, if you are refusing to build schools, no one can give back to those children the year of which they have been deprived. I say this Government, which is doing that in a frantic attempt to take some more off the Income Tax, is actually continuing to spend £100,000,000 a year in doles in one way or another. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I will only say, in answer to that, that it is either spent out of the Unemployment Fund, or out of the poor rates, and the State is one, the public money is one, whether it comes from the rates or the taxes. I cannot help regretting that the Government will not consider, apparently will not even read, the contrary proposals which are made on the subject of unemployment by the Labour party I want to make it clear
that we on this side heartily dislike this policy of relief by doles, and we accept no responsibility for it. We say, if you can do nothing else, at any rate make the payments to all the people who are unemployed, and at a rate sufficient to prevent deterioration of any of them. But we think that your present system combines all forms of extravagance. You let widespread unemployment grow, for want of preventing it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: How can we prevent it?

Mr. WEBB: I do not believe hon. Members even take the trouble to read our proposals. You let widespread unemployment grow for want of preventing it, you let it continue deliberately, because you will not take any steps to stop it. You will not even read how you could stop it and prevent it, and then you set to work merely to relieve the distress by making allowances on the level of semi-starvation. We on this side think that such a policy is intolerably wasteful of the nation's resources, but, what is far more important, it is inevitably detrimental to the health and the strength and the character of a large proportion of the wage-earners. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is your policy?"] We on this side of the House say there ought to be provided work and employment, and not doles. We believe in a policy of preventing unemployment.

Sir F. HALL: How?

Mr. WEBB: I have already protested several times that hon. Members will not even take the trouble to learn or to read. I cannot explain it all in a moment. Hon. Members must realise, if they will not take the trouble to read, that you cannot explain a complicated question like this in a moment. Hon. Members had the opportunity of reading it for years before them. The Government have not even taken the trouble to have the matter investigated. They have not even, so far as I have learned, ever considered how it is possible. We believe it is possible to prevent the occurrence of unemployment by so distributing the public orders for works and services among the years of the trade cycle that the aggregate volume of work to be done shall be every year approximately stable. I would ask the Minister of Labour whether he has ever taken the trouble to have that
scheme investigated. Of course, he has not, and, as a matter of fact—and here I am making a serious proposal to him—just before the Great War the Board of Trade did appoint a Committee to inquire how far the policy of allocating the public works and orders of the Central Departments could be carried out and how far it would operate to prevent unemployment. That Committee was interrupted by the Great War, and apparently this Government have never taken the trouble even to reappoint that Committee or to make any other inquiry on the subject. Consequently, their followers naturally have never heard of it.
I want, in conclusion, to point out two or three things of a different nature. First of all, there is no danger of the insolvency of the Unemployment Fund. Hon. Members may be quite happy about that. The debt is comparatively trivial, the Fund is bringing in £50,000,000 per year now, it would bring in about £60,000,000 in times of decent trade. I suppose, the debt is only about £20,000,000, and at the present time it is actually paying its way, I suppose. Probably the issues are only about as large as the receipts. We are not paying off the debt, but we have only to have a slight spurt of good trade for three months, and we shall pay it off. On the other hand, it is true that you cannot look forward to the numbers of the unemployed falling away to, as one hon. Member said, 500,000 or something like that. Until you take steps to prevent unemployment, you cannot look to see your unemployment sinking below—

Sir F. HALL: How is it to be prevented?

Mr. WEBB: Five or six times I have told the hon. Member.

Sir F. HALL: No, not once.

Mr. WEBB: Unfortunately, there are some things which are beyond the capacity of any hon. Member who does not take the trouble to read our proposals. The size of the present unemployment is said to he esnecially due to the Great War, Nothing of the kind. Probably the worst unemployment this country has ever had, though we do not have exact statistics, was in 1841, which, I suppose, was the year this building was finished after burning down. That was, after a quarter of a. century of complete peace, and after
nine years of the Whig Government in the Reformed Parliament, you had the worst unemployment this country has ever known. Lest it might seem that it was the fault of the Whigs, or that the Whigs were worse than the Tories, I think we should remember that the greatest period of unemployment since we have had statistics was in 1879, when we had had five years of Conservative government, which was marked not only by peace, but, the House may remember, was marked with "Peace with Honour." In that year there were more than 1,000,000 unemployed. The figure of unemployment, then, has always been accepted as 11 per cent., and it is only 12 per cent. now I mention those two dates, 1841 and 1879, to remind this House that this unemployment is not much worse, or in any special sense bad, compared with the normal. Unless you take either the steps I have suggested, or some better steps, to prevent unemployment, you will have the same sort of thing again. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Liberals said that the permanent method of dealing with unemployment in normal times is this method of insurance. I have heard hon. Members on the benches opposite say the same thing. It seems to me that to deal with unemployment by the method of insurance is not to deal with it at all. To let the disease grow, and then deal with it, is not the way we got rid of cholera, plague, or enteric. You have got to take steps to prevent the disease. That is the only way to deal with it.
I want to say very seriously that, in my opinion, there are two big dangers which are threatening Western civilisation to-day. One danger we all have in our mind is the danger of another war. The other danger, apparently, is not recognised by hon. Members opposite, and, seemingly, is not recognised by hon. Members on my left, but I think it is not less serious. It is the psychological reaction among the people against what, I venture to think, is the dark shadow of profit-making capitalism, which is not so much the danger of low wages or even long hours, but is the haunting sense of insecurity, the perpetual fear of unemployment, and the consequent risk of ruin to home and family that dogs the life of the wage-earner to-day. I venture
to say it is that, and not the proletarian Sunday school which is the seed bed of what hon. Members opposite call sedition, but which I might call divine discontent. We on these benches accept this Unemployment Bill, with all its faults, as the inexpensive minimum to meet an industrial situation which seems to us of appalling gravity. Of course, the Bill does not pretend to touch the problem of unemployment. What the wage-earner demands is that involuntary unemployment should not be relieved after it has occurred, but should he prevented from occurring. Hon. Members on the other side may laugh at that; may, if they like, admit that they do not know how to deal with it. We believe that unemployment can he prevented. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Widespread and long-continued unemployment can be prevented. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?" and "Open up the land!"] The people of the country believe that unemployment can be prevented. They ask that it shall be prevented. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite will not listen to our proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] At any rate, we shall go on proclaiming them up and down the country. We shall go on making the people believe that unemployment can be prevented, until we can see, in due time, a reflection of that in the majority of this House, and then—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I think we shall all agree that we have had an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for the Seaham Division (Mr. Webb), but I I think perhaps hon. Members will equally agree with me that it had very little relation to the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. In fact we can quite equally agree with the hon. Member for Seaham on one point, that we, probably, on this side of the House are suffering from an entire incapacity to understand what he was talking about. The Bill before the House is a modest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—a modest and honest attempt to deal with an immediate problem. It has been referred to by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) as a Bill reminding him of Joseph's coat of many colours. If my Biblical knowledge carries me properly in this matter I think Joseph was subsequently a per
son of some importance in Egyptian history, so that the coat of many colours was not without value in that community. Perhaps, therefore, this modest and honest little contribution, even as a temporary Measure, may have some use even if compared to Joseph's coat of many colours.

Mr. WALLHEAD: But it will not be remembered so long in history.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am not a prophet, and, therefore, I will not deal with that point, but it is evidently, on the one hand, thought by some that my right hon. Friend and the Government thought they were producing a mountain and only produced a mouse. On the other hand, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) told us on this Bench that we were creating a Frankenstein. Perhaps, therefore, taking a moderate view of the two positions, my right hon. Friend may be congratulated on, and gratified with the thought that the moderate man will read between the lines and accept, perhaps as a temporary solution of an immensely difficult problem, something which is deliberately intended to tide over a difficulty of immense proportions. My right hon. Friend will perhaps be pleased to have no opposition, and, even, if not the cordial consent, at any rate, some measure of support for this Measure that attempts to deal with this problem for the time being.
It was said—and quite rightly—by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) that whatever was proposed in this Bill does not go to the root of the matter. Of course, it cannot. Everybody knows perfectly well to-day that the Minister of Labour and the Government have been anxious for months, as they will probably be in the future, not only to try and co ordinate various Measures but to devise schemes to prevent, and not palliate, obvious difficulties. There is not the slightest reason why there should be all this criticism of this particular Bill. After all is said and done, right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to forget that the Minister of Labour and the present Government have not been in office so long, and still there has been a measure of criticism directed against recent legislation which hon. Gentlemen opposite will
remember, and it is to the effect that so much hasty legislation in the past has led to an immense increase of difficulties, and the time has arrived when perhaps more moderate and more considered ideas should prevail in regard to our legislation. With great respect, that, roughly, is what I would say as regards the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley.
Of course it is essential that this problem should be considered as a whole, and not simply in relation to the particular Measure we have introduced, but with a view to the larger and broader aspects of the future. If that be so, and the whole of the House I am sure will be in cordial agreement on that point, it is equally true to say that as regards this small, honest, and modest Measure there are various improvements and advantages. A reference has been made by the hon. Member for Seaham to the question of the gap, and I quite agree with him that it is not a desirable thing that any man in this country should find himself confronted with a gap as regards the receipt of benefit, but he must remember that in this Bill which my right hon. Friend has introduced, as regards the extension of the fourth period comprising 50 weeks, covenanted and uncovenanted benefit is accorded for 44 weeks, which is not an ungenerous provision. If we cannot meet the hon. Member's point in regard to the other two weeks I am sure he would be the last person to refuse to admit that we have gone a very long way in order to meet the distress and the demand of those who would otherwise be out of benefit altogether but for the provisions of this Bill.
Another point to which reference has been made is what has been called the continuity rule. There again the Minister of Labour has endeavoured to remove a grievance. Why was this alteration in the Bill devised? It was deliberately devised to prevent the friction that had arisen in regard to Clauses in previous Bills. There was what was called the "O—X—O" rule of one day in and one day out. There were the two days in and the two days out. It really does not matter whether the Clauses included in a previous Bill were designed to prevent expenditure or whether they were not. They were certainly a cause of friction and of hardship. In this Bill there has
been a very real attempt to obviate that friction and get rid of that hardship, and the result will be that after a period of three weeks, if you like to take it so, you will be able to have absolute continuity and a right to the establishment of your claim which you would never have got under any previous Bill, and you will practically obviate in a very large number of cases, especially of casual workers, not only to a large extent the waiting period before they come into benefit, but you will actually allow them to draw benefit during a period over which under previous circumstances they were never capable of doing The cost is really immaterial compared with the removal of restrictions. It is quite small. I believe it represents a fraction of a penny, and yet it will remove all friction. Surely you have gone one step further to do something to really secure that which the House desires to achieve—to remove hardship, to alleviate pain, and to destroy friction between classes in this country. If you can do that you will have done something which in essence is good.
I have noticed with great regret that over this Bill there is a suggestion that Members sitting on this side of the House are far more desirous of doing something to save their own skins rather than to promote the welfare of those whom the Bill is supposed to affect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I am sorry to hear those cheers. I am bound to say, if hon. Members will allow rue to say so, that if they cheer like that I must remind them of a quotation from Milton's "Paradise Lost":
Belial in much uneven scale,
Thou weighest all others by thyself.
This Bill is deliberately framed to assist men in a moment of intense difficulty to tide over their troubles, to give a little help to those whose outlook is rather hard and black to-day. Take what happens under this Bill. There are 44 weeks of covenanted and uncovenanted benefits out of 50 weeks assured until the 15th 'October this year. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Why the gap?"] I have dealt with that. Then there follow 26 weeks' covenanted and uncovenanted benefit after October next, and in October, 1924, we come down to the covenanted benefit idea pure and simple. There are some hon. Friends on this side of the House who suggest that there is no idea under
this Bill of returning to what they call ordinary economic circumstances venture to think you can read within the lines of this Bill that while you are dealing with the immediate problem of urgent necessity, there is still under it also a very real appreciation of the fact that when normal conditions are resumed the economic conditions that have hitherto prevailed may also have an opportunity of re-establishment.
There is equally within this Bill the continuation of the dependants' benefit. I noticed, and, indeed, I heard with some surprise, some remarks from hon. Members opposite in regard to that. Surely it must be recognised that the benefit given to a wife or a child, which operates identically with the benefit that is given to a man who is insured, does of itself do some good, and, if that is continued under this Bill, we are continuing and not reducing the benefit. It does another thing. Just in so far as that is done, it relieves in some degree the guardians in the various areas of this country. Therefore, it is a double benefit, and it is a right principle. What my right hon. Friend is doing in this modest way, this modest contribution towards—not solution of—a great problem, is something that may be accepted as an instalment, perhaps, of something that may come hereafter, but, at any rate, as an indication of the acceptance of the vital fact that a real necessity is with us to-day. My right hon. Friend has rightly said that by April there may be 150,000 men not drawing benefit. It is an urgent matter, therefore, that their position should be considered, and it is really not the time, whatever the future may hold for us, to debate the economic problems that interest us so deeply, when we are face to face with the position that, in the abnormal circumstances of unemployment in this country, even though there are signs of reviving trade, we have to deal with the necessities of these people at the present moment. It is an urgent necessity that something should be done.
I do not know that I can add much to what I have been allowed to say. I should only like to say this as regards details. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) made several remarks, and I do not know where he got some of his facts from Perhaps he will allow me to quote to him a remark of Sheridan—
perhaps he relies upon his memory for his jests and on his imagination for his facts. He does seem to have relied on his imagination for his facts, for he stated that there were 1,670,000 people out of employment, and that only 900,000 of them were drawing benefit. The figures are not correct. There are 1,130,000 drawing benefit—

Mr. WEBB: I said I thought 1,000,000 were drawing benefit.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am afraid I wrote it down 900,000. The hon. Member said there were 1,670,000—

Mr. MAXTON: Quote that bit from Milton again.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The figures are incorrect. The hon. Member also said—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Maybe you will find it in Robbie Burns.

Mr. WEBB: The figures I quoted have just been confirmed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I said there were 1,670,000 people unemployed, and I think I said that 1,000,000—[HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures confirm what I said, namely, that one-third of the persons unemployed are not drawing benefit.

Sir M. BARLOW: A large number of those are not under the Act at all.

Mr. WEBB: That is what I am saying.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The point is, anyhow, that the hon. Member for Sea-ham was incorrect in' his figures. [Interruption.] He is including in his figures agricultural labourers, who are not insurable persons, domestic servants, who are not insurable persons, and juveniles.

Mr. WEBB: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Those are exactly the figures I was giving.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Member was using the expression "unemployed" in view of the potential receipt of benefit.

Mr. WEBB: My point was that this is an unemployment insurance scheme, and I said that, of those 1,600,000 people, one-third of the total number of normal wage-earners who were unemployed were outside benefit.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Member must see that there was no point in using that figure of unemployed unless he meant the House to infer that the balance of those who were not in receipt of benefit were eligible for it. Then the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) referred in rather a moving speech to one or two incidents. He referred to some woman who had been employed who was living with an invalid husband and a blind sister.

Mr. HAYDAY: To get it quite correct, I said a single woman was refused benefit on the ground that she was living with a sister who was getting 10s. a week and the sister had a husband who was an invalid.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Thank you very much for correcting me. I am not making fun of this. It is a sad story, and I wish the hon. Member would let my right hon. Friend and myself know. I cannot conceive, if the circumstances are as he says, that there is not some mistake.

Mr. JOHNSTON: These mistakes are happening all over the country.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: If you are dealing with 12,000,000 insured it is not unreasonable to imagine that there will be some mistakes.

Mr. JOHNSTON: They are always on your side.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. S, Stephen) spoke of Clause 9. Under Clause 9 there is a right of appeal to the referees and to the umpire, and therefore, if hon. Members opposite wish to assist the working of these various Acts of Parliament and this new Bill when it becomes law, we should welcome their action in everything they can do to see where there are gaps or faults of administration, to see that the Regulations which arc laid down are observed and that anyone who feels himself aggrieved shall go to the proper authority for his case to be considered.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In the case of uncovenanted benefit, have you not set down in the memorandum that uncovenanted benefit has no right of appeal?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I was referring to covenanted benefit. I think the hon. Member will understand why that is so. A great claim was made by the hon. Member for Seaham for uncovenanted benefit. I said, and say again, you can hardly expect a man who draws uncovenanted benefit to be in exactly the same position as a man who draws covenanted benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because a man who draws covenanted benefit has a contractual engagement with the State. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the other would have it if he had the opportunity."] The hon. Member can speak when I have sat down. With the man who is getting uncovenanted benefit, the State has only a potential alliance and agreement. Therefore, from the ordinary point of view of the man or the woman who has fulfilled his or her contract, the State has to recognise that contract as he or she does, and it is perfectly unreasonable to suggest that a potential payment, which may be made in years to come, and which the recipient of uncovenanted benefit may be called upon to pay, and which he may wish probably to ultimately pay, puts such person in the same position as the man or woman who has contractual relations with the State.
There were several other suggestions and criticisms. The right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) raised a question as to the Trades Disputes Disqualification Clause. I can only say that the Committee under Sir Thomas Munro is sitting, and they are having a further sitting to-morrow, and it would be unjust to them, as it would be undesirable in itself, to say anything further as regards that Committee. I do not think the House would wish it, and certainly the House will appreciate the difficulty in saying anything as regards any decision at which the Committee may arrive. It is well recognised that this Bill can be called a continuing Bill. It is a continuing Bill because it will continue, while it will add to the benefits that are to be given to the insured and the uninsured, uncovenanted people of this country. It is but a small attempt to deal with a great problem but it is an attempt to tide over an emergency period, and will be welcomed as such by the majority of the House. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was glad to hear from the
right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) that he did not intend to oppose the Second Reading, because even in the limited scope of this Bill there is something appealing that is a real advancement, and when you have something that appeals, with a real advancement attached to it, then, in time to come, with hours at our disposal and months for our use, something else may be hammered out of a more permanent character, and with a more conclusive result. If that can be done then, by our action in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, the Whole House who feel, in spite of the criticisms that have been devoted to the Bill, that they have contributed something to alleviate an immediate danger and an urgent need, and that they will net have prohibited and not have put anything in the way of the further development of a more permanent scheme for the alleviation of unemployment in this country.

Mr. MUIR: I should like to ask a question to clear up a point With regard to Clause 6, it seems to me—I may he wrong —that there is an Amendment of the Education Act of 1921 relating to England and Wales. It deals with the powers of the local education authorities to give assistance and provide information for juveniles in choosing employment. This Committee would be deprived of their powers unless they were prepared to administer unemployment benefit under the juvenile scheme. My question is whether this Bill is not an Amendment of the 1921 Education Act, and an interference with its powers? If so, how does it affect Scotland? Does it affect a Scottish Education Committee in the same way in regard to the juvenile scheme?

Sir M. BARLOW: I can only speak again by leave of the House, as an appeal has been made to me. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in the view he takes. As I mentioned in my speech, a question of friction arose. There has been considerable friction in the country for a good many years past, because of the two parallel systems. In order to deal with that difficulty, the late Government asked Lord Chelmsford to sit as a sort of arbitrator between the two systems. He issued a report, with certain recommendations, and the Clause in this Bill is intended to carry out the recommendations of that report. We hope that by that
means the difficulties will be obviated. The Bill only covers the English Committees and not the Scottish.

Mr. MUIR: Following on that, is it in Order to amend another Act by this Bill, which deals with unemployment insurance? Is it in Order to amend an Education Act without dealing with that Act specifically?

Sir M. BARLOW: Why not?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is a point that will have to be raised in Committee on the Bill. At present I can see nothing in that point to prevent the Bill being read a Second time.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 6 (2, a). Does not the provision there made throw the burden of looking after the needs of these children between the ages of 16 and 18 on the Insurance Fund rather than on the education committee?

Sir M. BARLOW: We really are getting on to a discussion which is more appropriate for the Committee than the Second Reading. I shall be very glad to deal with these points as they arise when we are in Committee, but it is hardly the proper time for them now.

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask a question, in order that we may have guidance in Committee? As a former member of the Glasgow Education Authority, we hired a large building from the Admiralty to deal with adolescents, as far as training was concerned. While in Committee, can we bring up questions of dealing with adolescents in towns like Glasgow, apart, altogether from the payment of insurance?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better look at the title of the Bill, in order to see if he can frame an Amendment to the Title. There is a distinct reference to the education authority in the Title.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL WAGES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. LEACH: I want to draw the attention of the House, and also of the hon. Gentleman representing the Ministry of Health, to a matter of which I gave private notice a day, or two ago. I am not sure whether this matter has been dealt with by the Minister of Health or the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the milk supply of Bradford, and possibly other large towns in the West Riding of Yorkshire. For nearly 30 years we in Bradford have operated certain regulations governing the sanitation, lighting, cubic space and cleansing of cowsheds. While those regulations are not ideal, they are the most drastic we could devise under the powers given to us, and by their operation most of the unhealthy cows within the city area have been located and their numbers reduced to vanishing point, to the considerable advantage of the milk supply of the city. Unfortunately, we have to get 40 per cent. of our milk from outside the city boundaries where such conditions do not operate. We have in the city two thoroughly qualified milk inspectors, one of them being a veterinary surgeon. The result of their work has been that when samples of milk are taken no more than 0.1 per cent. has been found to be tubercular. But of the samples taken from the other 40 per cent. of our supply which comes from outside the city boundaries, invariably from 5 to 10 per cent. are tubercular.
The West Riding authority itself has no veterinary inspectors of milk, and the little urban district councils governing the area of our 40 per cent. supply have only inspectors on part time, and frequently indeed not at all. In those agricultural areas inspection has become more or less a complete farce, and we in the large towns suffer in consequence of the quality of the milk obtained from these rural areas. Moreover, the town farmers inside Bradford and other large towns have to toe the line much more strictly than the farmers in the agricultural areas. The urban district councils are dominated by uninstructed farmers who regard regulations governing milk supplies as nuisances to themselves, The inspectors
are discouraged from performing the work adequately, and if there is an inspector in those areas who does his work conscientiously he will not long keep his job. That is a very serious matter for Bradford and other large towns.
11.0 P.M.
The Milk and Dairies Act of 1915 might have helped us in the matter, but, unfortunately, it has been suspended. I do not know why. The 1922 Act, on the other hand, does not touch the evil with which I am dealing, because while it licenses the pure milk retailer, it also licenses the dirty milk for poorer people. Under the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1911, there was promulgated in June, 1914, a tuberculosis Order. That Order was good in its provisions, but, unhappily, it has been mysteriously withdrawn. Under that Order, if a cow were tubercular or had a chronic cough or disease of the udder, the case had to be reported to the police in the area, and there was power to stop the supply of milk which might be coming from there, and the authority were empowered to examine the cow and order its slaughter if it were necessary, and in addition to compensate the owner under the agreed scale. In consequence of that the farmer had no particular grievance in the matter, and the poisoning of the public was prevented. The local authority paid over to the farmers the money under the scale, and the Government on its part, reimbursed the local authority a portion of that figure.
To-day the Bradford Corporation have received from the Minister of Agriculture a letter pointing out that the total cost under the Order was about £80,000 per annum from the Imperial Exchequer and probably about twice that amount from local funds, and that., as a consequence of that cost, the Ministry could not see their way to the re-enforcement of the Order. Surely the figure of £80,000 cannot be accounted a very extravagant amount, especially in view of the protection from poisonous milk which the operation of the Order afforded to the people. We ask for the reinstatement of the Order. What has happened since its withdrawal? Our inspector in his work finds a tubercular cow. He stops the milk supply from that cow and has the animal segregated The owner, faced with a loss
and knowing that no compensation will be paid, if he is alive to the powers which he now possesses, proceeds to sell the animal to a dealer. The dealer, engaged in not too scrupulous a work, disposes of the animal outside the city boundary and our inspector completely loses sight of it. There is every reason to suppose that the animal goes to swell the milk herds in districts where they are not so particular, and the poison is spread in the same way again. In the last three years, 1920, 1921 and 1922, in the City of Bradford our inspectors have had to stand by whilst 86 per cent. of all the cows found to be tubercular have passed out of their control into the hands of dealers, and the danger to the public of Bradford thereby continues quite unnecessarily. If the 1914 Order had still been in operation all this danger would have been stopped, and the work of protection would have continued instead of having been hampered by the absence of the Order. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will take measures for the re-imposition of this beneficent Order.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: There is the question of agricultural wages, which we have not yet considered, but which, it seems to me, is so serious as to be almost desperate. It is very difficult to obtain information as to the 'actual rate of wages paid to agricultural labourers in the various counties at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, in answer to a question put by me, said, as far as he could ascertain the wage paid under the orders of the National Farmers' Union to the agricultural labourers in Somerset at present is 30s. He must know, as all farmers know, that the wage fixed by the National Farmers' Union does not, as a matter of fact, represent the wage usually paid in the county. We have recently had some information in the daily papers as to the course of wages in two or three counties in England. In to-day's paper it is stated that the executive committee of the National Farmers' Union in Norfolk has decreed that instead of a 25s. wage for 50 hours, or 6d. per hour, the wage shall be 24s. 9d. for 54 hours, or 5½. per hour. I asked a question recently about a strike in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire where the wage had been reduced from 24s. for 48 hours to 21s. 6d. for 51 hours. In Somerset the official wage is 30s., but as all farmers
in Somerset know, 25s. is very generally paid. It is difficult to produce evidence, because of the reluctance of the labourers to give evidence for fear of losing their positions. I have heard of cases running down from 25s. to one case of 20s. per week. That case deserves consideration, because it was publicly mentioned at a meeting by the organiser of the Labourers' Union. He described bow a man had fallen behind the plough and how the farmer took him in a cart to the union hospital. There he was found to be suffering from nothing but starvation. He was put into the union hospital to be fed up in order that he might be able to go back to work. The organiser made inquiries and found that the man had a wife and four children whom he was supposed to keep on 20s. a week. The man himself could not afford to eat anything before going to work in the morning; his first meal was at midday when he had bread and cheese, and he had some bread and lard in the evening when he was finished. That was the total nourishment he got.
These facts seem to require investigation. It is a scandalous thing that any man should be called upon to work for 20s. per week with prices as they are at present. The Minister of Agriculture, in answer to another question of mine, said that the cost of living is now about 80 per cent. above that of 1914. A 30s. rate in Somerset represents about 50 per cent. advance. If 30s. represents a 50 per. cent. advance, men who are drawing only 25s. are only receiving 25 per cent. advance over the 1914 cost of living, while the actual advance in that cost is 80 per cent. That shows the standard of comfort on 25s. per week must have gone down materially as compared with the pre-War standard. These facts also seem to indicate a tendency towards a rapid fall in wages and an increase in the hours of labour. Both features are equally objectionable. The cause appears to be the failure of collective bargaining. It is known that there has been a serious fall in the numbers of the agricultural unions during the past year. In my own parish the branch has closed down entirely, and all round branches are weakening. The men have no strength in their union to stand up against the union of the farmers in the conciliation committees, and the labourers themselves are not strong
enough to stand up against the individual farmers. It comes to this—that there is no question of bargaining at all, but of dictation by the employer who is in a stronger position than the employed. That dictation is fortified, in the first place, by the fear of unemployment on the part of the man. Land is rapidly going into grass. In my immediate neighbourhood there are scores of acres being put down to grass, and permanent hands are being dismissed. We have heard to-day that there are 131,000 casual labourers who are a pool from which labour can be drawn, so that the fear of the permanent man is a very real fear and has a very real basis to it. He has also the fear of losing his home. There is the system of tied cottages, and, if he be dismissed, he is liable to lose his cottage. If it were fair bargaining, there would be nothing to say, but this is bargaining with all the power on one side and all the weakness on the other.
It is difficult to suggest a remedy. We have certain promises, which doubtless will mature, to improve the position of the farmer generally and so enable him to pay a higher wage, but in my opinion it requires more than that; and, if the farmers would agree to it, the right way appears to me to be to make the decision of the Conciliation Committee registerable by law, so that it would prevail not only in the Farmers' Union, but among all the farmers in the counties to which it applied. That seems to me to be the smallest measure of satisfaction that can be given to agricultural labour in this matter. The question is one very near to my heart, and I am certain that hon. Members will feel that it is a matter to which we must pay attention.

Mr. MAXTON: During the week-end up in Scotland my attention has been called to the fact that the farmers are presently ploughing stocks of potatoes into the land for manure purposes, for the reason that the potato crop has been so successful that there is an over-supply— [An HON. MEMBER: "Dumping!"]—and they cannot command a price in the market that would pay even the cost of transport to the market. That seems a most extraordinary thing that, on the one hand, we have a complaint that the agricultural industry cannot pay the workers on the land a wage, and, on the other
hand, a complaint that their work is so productive that a price cannot be obtained for the goods that are produced, and an agricultural labourer has to feed on bread and lard while good wholesome potatoes are being ploughed into the land as manure. That seems to me to be an extraordinary state of chaos in our national economy, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information as to whether this oversupply of potatoes is general throughout the whole country, or whether it is limited to a particular locality, and whether this practice of destroying the surplus is being generally resorted to by farmers; further, whether the Ministry of Agriculture have given any consideration to devising some national scheme. Earlier in the evening a right hon. Gentleman referred to the work of Joseph. I think it was Joseph or Moses who, in somewhat similar circumstances, collected a huge supply of grain for equitable distribution amongst the community, and I would suggest that perhaps the Ministry of Agriculture, if potatoes are being destroyed at the present time, might consider the possibility of devising some scheme of collecting these surplus potatoes, allowing the farmers something to cover their cost of producing these potatoes, and getting the potatoes into the hands of the people who are at the present time starving.

Mr. LAMB: I regret that I cannot support all that has been said by the two hon. Members who have preceded me, but I can support strongly the object which I believe both of them have in view, namely, the betterment of the condition of those who are working in the industry of agriculture. I cannot support the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Hope Simpson) when he said that the bulk of the farmers are not abiding loyally by the agreements which have been made and come so between the Farmers' Union and the Workers' Union.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: I did not intend to convey that impression for a moment, The majority of farmers do not belong to the Farmers' Union, and are not bound by the agreements of the Farmers' Union.

Mr. LAMB: I think the majority of farmers do. At any rate, if they do not,
they ought to belong to the Farmers' Union, because I am a strong believer in union both for the worker and for the employer, and that is why I make that remark. But I do say that those who are members of the Farmers' Union, by a very large majority—in fact, the cases are very rare where it is not so—do abide most loyally by the decisions which have been come to by the Conciliation Committee. Unfortunately, the industry itself is in such a deplorable condition that the wage that is being paid by those farmers is certainly not an economic one. I could support the hon. Member when he appeals to the Minister, and mentions the great necessity there is for some speedy relief being given to the industry as a whole which would undoubtedly enable the farmers then to give a better wage, which they desire to do, to those people who are working for them. He has referred to the question of registration. What is the good, or the practical use, of registering a wage which an industry cannot pay? If some proposal can be brought forward to register an economic price for the article which the man and employer are producing, then we can talk about registration; but not until that time, because the effect of registration would only be that it would decrease the amount of labour employed upon the land—a disastrous thing for the country as a whole. I hope the Minister will give this matter his very serious consideration, and that the main point will be that he and those responsible with him will not consider what medicine is suitable for the patient so long until the patient has died.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I must apologise to the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) who opened this discussion, as I only received notice of the matter this afternoon. It was not owing to his fault; but he gave notice to another Department, and it only came on to me this afternoon, so that I have not received long enough notice to be able to go thoroughly into this matter of the Order of 1914, to which he referred. That Order had a short trial. It was only in force for about six weeks, and then it dropped owing to the War. It gave to local authorities, as the hon. Member said, power to slaughter, but they had to pay compensation, of which the Board of Agriculture
undertook to refund three-quarters. As the hon. Member has stated, the reason —the only reason, I believe—why that Order is not now in force is the financial reason. The Government were not prepared to find the sum that would be necessary in order that they might perform their portion of the payment necessitated by the Order, and we have no indication that the local authorities would be able to find the whole of that money upon their own account. The hon. Member dealt in some measure with the special circumstances in Bradford. I am sorry I am not acquainted with those special circumstances, but if there is anything special about them which the hon. Member can bring to my notice, I shall be very happy to look into them.
I come to the next question. First of all, with regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Stephen) as to the over-supply of potatoes. The hon. Member wanted to know if over supply was general? It is general. I believe it is even greater in Lincolnshire than in Scotland. The hon. Member suggests that I should play the part of Joseph. It was Joseph and not Moses! I am afraid the potatoes, whether in Lincolnshire or Lanarkshire, are not so easy to store for long periods as was the corn in Egypt. That is a physical difficulty which prevents me, however much I should like to do it, from playing the part of Joseph in this instance.

Captain TERRELL: Is it not a fact that the main cause of the surplus of potatoes is the very large number of foreign potatoes dumped into this country?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not also because the charges of railways, which are under private control, are so excessive, and also because the railways give a preferential tariff to foreign importations?

Mr. MAXTON: Is not the real reason the fact that the people have no money to buy either foreign or home-grown potatoes?

Sir R. SANDERS: However that may be, Dutch potatoes were sent over here at a very low rate. But the primary cause of the glut in potatoes is that undoubtedly we had such a very bountiful crop in England.

Mr. MACLEAN: And you have the people starving with a glut. That is private enterprise!

Sir R. SANDERS: Owing to the bountiful crop of potatoes in this country, the price came down very low and potatoes hardly paid the cost of carriage. In regard to the wage question—and I am glad my hon. Friend referred to it—let me say that the average wage, taking the country throughout at the present time—and I only want to state facts, and not to make any comment upon them—the average wage, so far as we can ascertain, is 27s. 9d. The increase on the pre-War wage is 54 per cent. The increase in the cost of living is 77 per cent., so it is, undoubtedly, the fact that the agricultural labourer's wage is lower in proportion than it was before the War. The present means that we have for regulating the wages are the conciliation committees that were established by the Agricultural Act of a little over a year ago. They number 63 in England and Wales. Up to last autumn they were working pretty well. Arrangements were come to by 46 of the 63 committees. Up to the present time only 16 of the committees have effected arrangements, and six of these are due to expire at the end of April. What is happening now in most cases is that, when the National Farmers' Union have laid down that rate of wages for a county, that rate laid down is generally paid. In most cases the men's representatives refuse to accept that rate or to bargain on that basis. I have reason to believe that one of their reasons is that, although that rate may be laid down by the National Farmers' Union, there are a certain number of farmers in the district who, in spite of it being laid down by the Union, will continue to pay a higher rate for a time; and there has been a fear on the part of the men's representatives that if they entered into an agreement on the basis of those wages paid by the farmers, some of them would be getting, not a higher, but a lower wage. No doubt that does happen in a certain number of cases, but such cases tend to get fewer as time goes on, and although a man may pay a higher rate for a hit, when he finds his neighbours paying a. lower rate he will come down to the same level. Cases occur in many counties where individuals pay a
lower rate than the National Farmers' Union has laid down, and in the absence of a general agreement which might be effected, but is not being effected by the conciliation committees, such cases are likely to get more numerous. I believe that for the conciliation committees to come to an agreement in the majority of cases instead of as at present a very small minority would be in the interest both of employers and employed, and both of the farmers and the workmen. I am only too anxious to get the conciliation committees to function again. One difficulty one has to deal with is the want of elasticity in the powers of both sides. The Farmers' Union say what they think the wage should be. The Labourers' Union say what they think the wage should be and then representatives if they come in at all come into the Conciliation Committee not as plenipotentiaries but with their hands tied on both sides. When you have these cast-iron terms arranged beforehand agreement is very difficult if not absolutely impossible. I believe if we can get these conciliation committees to function it will
be a good thing all round. That is what I am trying to do.
I am considering now addressing a communication to the members of these committees, suggesting the terms on which they might meet. I thank the hon. Member opposite for the suggestion he has made as to registering agreements. I will certainly consider that, but I am not sure how far it would tend to promote more agreements. I am not sure it might not tend to promote less agreement. I think it is quite possible that although one side might attach great importance to registering, the other side might be less willing to come to an agreement if it knew that that agreement were going to be registered. I will certainly take these considerations into account, and I hope what has been said to-night may be helpful in making things a little better in what is one of the very greatest and very saddest of the difficulties that agriculture has to deal with at the present moment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.